Emails: Five included defamatory statements
A City law firm is suing a former client for defamation and malicious falsehood contained in emails he sent to the Legal Ombudsman and others.
After a preliminary hearing, Mr Justice Griffiths held that statements in five of the six emails under scrutiny were defamatory of CJJ Law.
Preliminary hearings on the meaning of allegedly defamatory statements have become standard in libel cases so that the parties know where they stand.
The court heard that John Sapsford was a longstanding client of CJJ Law – his main contact was partner Stephen Fairburn. They had been friends from before he joined the firm and co-owned a flat together – disputes arose between them about the management and expenses of the flat.
There was also a dispute about a loan with an acquaintance of Mr Sapsford, over when Mr Fairburn was said to have sent 1,255 emails between October 2018 and March 2023, at which point CJJ Law sent him an invoice for £34,500.
Mr Sapsford denies that he ever agreed that chargeable work should be done in respect of these emails and that Mr Fairburn knew this. He alleges that the solicitor raised the invoice “out of spite” because of their falling-out.
He also claims that the loan was with a company, not him personally, and so any legal fees were owed by the company, and that the retainer was limited and had ceased and been paid for.
CJJ Law argues that it was instructed by Mr Sapsford personally and was entitled to charge for the work done.
Mr Sapsford described the invoice as “fraudulent” in a number of emails, although CJJ Law is only suing over six of them.
The first went to the Legal Ombudsman, and was copied to others, while the recipients of the other emails were mostly mutual friends or acquaintances of both Mr Fairburn and Mr Sapsford, although they also included two other CJJ Law partners and two of Mr Sapsford’s family members.
Griffiths J found that, in five of the emails, Mr Sapsford accused the law firm and/or Mr Fairburn of acting fraudulently. These were all defamatory at common law.
Leave a Comment