National

Building inspector defamed lawyer: judge

By AAP Newswire

A Sydney building inspector whose online reviews portrayed a solicitor as being an unethical standover man has been ordered to pay $84,000 in defamation damages.

Lawyer Mark Rodger Smith sued inspector Richard Jones in the NSW District Court over reviews on Google and Yelp in 2018.

Mr Smith, who practises in the Sutherland Shire, had clients who were involved in a dispute about fees and a report provided by Mr Jones, who was the managing director of Sydney Building Defects Inspections and Reports.

In a decision published online, Judge Andrew Scotting last week found Mr Jones had defamed the solicitor and ordered him to pay $80,000 damages, $4280 interest and his legal costs.

He also banned Mr Jones from repeating the defamatory claims.

"As recently as 3 April 2020, the defendant has represented in email correspondence that he does not care about the outcome of the proceedings and that he will continue to defame the plaintiff 'again and again'," the judge said.

The defamation trial went ahead without Mr Jones, who did not file a defence and who emailed the judge's associate saying he would not participate in the hearing.

The email stated "the plaintiff will be getting nothing".

Mr Jones said the solicitor "can bankrupt me" and "was an officer of the court threatening a commoner, witnessed by my wife, whilst he was acting for two devious and cunning developers who didn't want to pay for their defects report".

The judge was satisfied the Yelp review implied that Mr Smith was "worthy of ridicule, unethical, places financial gain ahead of ethics and that he financially exploits his own clients".

Other defamatory meanings were that he acted unprofessionally by commencing frivolous and vexatious proceedings.

The second review also conveyed defamatory meanings including that the solicitor threatened to assault Mr Jones to achieve his clients' ends and was a standover man.

"The defamation of the plaintiff was serious in that it struck at the heart of his character and the conduct of his profession as a solicitor," Judge Scotting said.

"I am satisfied that the matters complained of were published to the world at large and probably read by at least a few thousand people."

The judge said Mr Jones knew the contents of the reviews were untrue.

They were "part of a pattern of conduct by the defendant, seeking to harass the plaintiff because he was acting as a solicitor for the clients".