Introduction
This Blog covers in somewhat a large amount of detail SLAPPs, and what they are.
To recap: SLAPPs are a threat of litigation (or actual litigation) where there is no legitimate claim, the threat has been unduly made, is threatening or misleading – or the purposes for the ligation itself to stop legitimate criticism or exposure of wrongdoing.
In recent times, the SRA has published notices on what NOT to do when writing to people and how NOT to behave. But either certain solicitors have failed to take notice of this – or ignored it.
Step forward John Lord of HF Law
In many respects this is a bit of a shame, as Jon Lord (without the “H”) is one of my favourite keyboard players!
But John Lord, has issued a threatening letter, without proper legal cause for his ‘clients’ and without any apparent legal basis whatsoever.
The letter relates to a small Facebook group called “Hands off My Bills“.
The SLAPP
The letter John Lord writes, on behalf of HF Law, is representing MHAF Management Limited.
At the top, the letter says “Private and Confidential”. However it is not: There is no confidence owed in the letter, as there is no confidential information shared.
In their notice, under the heading “Labelling correspondence”, the SRA say:
The key questions will be a) does the information have the necessary quality of confidence and b) was the information imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence (Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd 1969)?
However, you should be prepared to justify why a letter is confidential and consider whether it is necessary to explain this – for example including the words ‘for the attention only of’.
Further, the use of a blanket label may not be appropriate. You should consider carefully whether all or only some parts of the communication attract confidence and consider identifying the parts to which confidence applies and explaining the basis for that clearly.
The letter does not seek to justify what is confidential, or why.
The letter claims to be on a Pre-Action basis, and purports under Section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 the ability of MHAF Management Limited to rely on the “likelihood” of serious financial loss.
But as we know in the case of BW Legal v Trustpilot (and many others involving corporate claimiants), Section 1(2) is the correct section for for-profit corporations to rely on serious financial loss.
So, that is incorrect as a matter of law. Back to law school John Lord!
Within the letter, it makes a series of quotes, supposedly defamatory of MHAF Management Limited.
However, careful and proper reading of the posts shows the posts refer by name to “Trilogy Consultants”, “One Energy”, “UK Water”, “Jewel Energy”, and so forth. No direct mention of MHAF Management Limited though!
A claim for Defamation, of course, requires the claimant to be “identifiable”. However in none of the quotes contained in the letter MHAF Management is not even mentioned!
In the case of Jewel Energy (for example) they are their own limited company (Jewel Energy Limited) – but the letter does not refer to HF Law or John Lord as being instructed by them!
How MHAF Management Limited have been defamed as a result of any of these quoted posts remains a complete mystery – but it’s not stopped John Ltd and HF Law from claiming there is a ‘defamation’ claim, and the consequences, if demands are not met!
In the SRA’s SLAPP Notice they say an example of a SLAPP may be:
Seeking to threaten or advance meritless claims on behalf of your client, including in pre-action correspondence or in response to requests for information, and including claims where it should be clear that a defence to that type of claim will be successful based on what you know.
The letter concludes with the words that:
Again, so what?
There is nothing confidential within the letter, beyond a badly drafted legal letter. Whilst MHAF Management Limited and John Lord at HF Law may see the issue as a “serious matter”, it does not mean that the Court would.
In fact, it is within the public interest to publish such nonsense letters.
Again, in their SLAPP Notice, the SRA give guidance on this:
Using the label [of Not for Publication] to indicate the position on consent to publication, is therefore unlikely in itself to attract regulatory action although, as above, care should be taken in using this in combination with other labels and any assertions regarding the consequences of publishing should not be exaggerated or oppressive.
I would say referring to it as a “serious matter” and saying rights are “expressly reserved”, would tend to be exaggerated or oppressive, when there is no legal recourse for publishing a dodgy letter written by a solicitor.
Conclusion
Within the letter there were various other demands, inclusive of providing data, apology, payment of legal costs, etc, etc. None of which MHAF Management Limited appear to be entitled to.
The letter that John Lord of HF Law sent was an obvious attempt to shut down a Facebook Page and threatening litigation to do so, despite there being no apparent posts on the Facebook page that link in any way to MHAF Management Limited. This of course notwithstanding the fact John Lord appears to be representing other limited companies, as set out in the letter, without instructions.
The remedies demanded, MHAF do not appear to be entitled to – and labelling of the letter as “private and confidential” and by innuendo “not for publication”, appear to be trying to conceal the dodgyness of the letter – rather than because of any legitimate confidentiality concerns.
Watch out for John Lord of HF Law, and if you receive and ‘pre-action’ correspondence threatening defemation or otherwise – treat is suspiciously.
