Background
Kevin Joseph Conroy, a solicitor and principal of K. J. Conroy Solicitors, sued former client Adrian Andrzej Stojek over a Google review posted in April 2025. The review called Conroy a “fraudster,” alleged that he overcharged clients, and said he had tried to take the defendant’s house after making mistakes. The firm had previously obtained judgment against Stojek for unpaid legal fees and secured that debt by a charging order over his home.
Stojek did not acknowledge service or file a defence, and Conroy obtained default judgment, with damages to be assessed. The court later refused Stojek’s delayed application to set aside that judgment. Stojek removed the review in February 2026 pursuant to an undertaking, although a Google snippet remained. At the damages hearing, Conroy could not identify readers, lost clients, lost revenue, or analytics showing the review’s reach; Stojek accepted that the allegations were untrue.
The Court’s Holding
Deputy Master Marzec awarded Conroy £9,500 in damages. The court accepted, for the assessment, that the review conveyed allegations that Conroy dishonestly overcharged and committed criminally deceptive or dishonest acts. Those were serious allegations against a practising solicitor, and the court found it realistic to infer serious reputational harm despite the lack of direct evidence of readership or business loss.
The review had been online for about 10 months, was posted by a named former client, appeared on the widely used Google platform, was one of only five reviews, and had received two “likes.” But the limited proof of publication and impact moderated the award. The court also held that the public judgment vindicated Conroy’s reputation, and refused an injunction because there was no real or credible threat that Stojek would republish the review.
Key Takeaways
- False allegations of fraud and dishonest overcharging against a solicitor are capable of causing serious reputational harm.
- Serious harm may be inferred from the circumstances of an online publication, even without identified readers or evidence of lost business.
- Limited evidence of readership and impact can substantially reduce damages; the court awarded £9,500 rather than the £30,000 sought.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how courts assess damages after default judgment in online-review defamation claims. A claimant need not prove a precise number of readers to establish serious harm, but bears the burden of proving publication and impact when seeking a larger award.
It also confirms that a judgment can provide meaningful vindication, and that an injunction will not be granted merely because defamatory material was previously published: a credible threat of republication is required.