B&L Solicitors v Niazi - Defamation (Employee Online Reviews)

Inner Temple Library Current Awareness

Filed January 1st, 2026

Detected March 31st, 2026

Summary

The England and Wales High Court found that Shanaz Niazi's negative online reviews accusing B&L Solicitors of dishonesty and incompetence were defamatory at common law. Deputy High Court judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC held that allegations impugning a professional person's honesty, integrity and professionalism are plainly likely to lower their estimation in others. The judgment deals with preliminary issues including the meaning of three one-star reviews posted on review websites in 2024. The firm itself failed in its defamation claim as the reviews were not found defamatory of the firm at common law.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The High Court determined that three one-star reviews posted by former employee Shanaz Niazi about her former employer B&L Solicitors were defamatory at common law. Judge Vassall-Adams KC held that ordinary reasonable readers would take seriously allegations questioning a professional person's honesty and integrity, finding these statements would have a substantial adverse effect on how others treat the professional. The case (TWH Legal Services Limited T/A B&L Solicitors & Anor v Shanaz & Anor, EWHC KB 2026/746) addressed only preliminary issues including the meaning of the reviews and whether they were defamatory, with full trial on quantum to follow.

Employers and legal professionals should note that this judgment confirms professionals can succeed in defamation claims based on online reviews by former employees. Organisations should review employment contracts for social media and non-disparagement clauses, ensure HR departure procedures address online review risks, and understand the precedent this sets for future claims involving employee-generated content about professional competence.

What to do next

Review employment contracts and settlement agreements for social media and non-disparagement clauses
Update HR departure procedures to address online review risks and document contentious exits
Assess defamation risk when employees post negative online reviews about professional competence

Source document (simplified)

Reviews by a probate executive accusing her former employer, a solicitor, of being dishonest and incompetent have been found to be defamatory at common law.

Shanaz Niazi left three one-star reviews on two different review websites in 2024 after leaving Croydon-based B&L Solicitors, owned by Elaine Liddle. Liddle issued proceedings on a number of issues following Niazi's departure. Niazi denies the allegations against her. Liddle also issued a defamation claim.

The judgment in TWH Legal Services Limited T/A B&L Solicitors & Anor v Shanaz & Anor deals only with the preliminary issues in the libel claim, including the meaning of the three reviews and whether they are defamatory.

Judge makes first ‘statutory SLAPP’ declaration
Law lecturer brings action against student over ‘sex-for-marks’ defamation Finding the first review defamatory at common law, Deputy High Court judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC said: ‘I think the ordinary reasonable reader would form the impression that [Niazi] is someone with an axe to grind. However, it does not follow that the ordinary reasonable reader wouldn’t take the allegations seriously. In the circumstances, I think the ordinary reasonable reader would take the allegations seriously.

‘Allegations about a professional person that impugn their honesty, integrity and professionalism are plainly likely to lower their estimation in the eyes of others and to have a substantial adverse effect on the way they are treated by other people.’

Referring to the second review, the judge said the allegations were all defamatory at common law adding: ‘These are serious allegations to level at any person, particularly a professional person whose business depends on securing the trust of the general public.’

The judge found the reviews were not defamatory of the firm at common law and as such, B&L did not have its own libel claim.