Understanding how defamation works — and what options are available — is essential for anyone navigating the modern media landscape.

What Is Defamation, and Why Does It Matter?

Defamation is the legal term for a false statement that unjustly harms someone’s reputation. It takes two primary forms:

• Libel: defamation in permanent form, typically written or published.
• Slander: defamation in transient form, usually spoken.

To succeed in a defamation claim, the statement must be:

• Defamatory: it lowers the person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.
• False: truth is an absolute defence.
• Published: communicated to at least one third party.
• Likely to cause serious harm: especially relevant under UK defamation law since the Defamation Act 2013.

In practice, defamatory content may appear in a wide range of contexts — from social media posts and online reviews to traditional journalism and internal company communications.

Examples from the Field

Defamation law spans many sectors and scenarios. Consider the following examples:

The Online Review That Went Too Far

A small business faced a wave of negative attention after a former customer posted an online review accusing the owner of illegal practices. The claim was untrue — but it spread rapidly, causing reputational and financial harm. While businesses must tread carefully due to freedom of expression, the review crossed the line from opinion into false factual allegation. The situation was eventually resolved through direct negotiation and a retraction.

LinkedIn Allegations and Professional Fallout

In another case, a professional’s former colleague shared accusations on LinkedIn, alleging misconduct during a past collaboration. While framed as commentary, the statements suggested criminal behaviour — triggering serious concerns for the individual’s career. The matter highlighted how even ‘personal’ online platforms can be legally actionable if reputational damage occurs.

False Claims in a Press Article

Public figures and companies are often subjected to critical media coverage. In one instance, a technology firm took issue with claims made in a tech magazine article suggesting unethical data practices. After raising concerns directly with the publication, an editorial correction was issued — demonstrating how press accountability and reputational repair can go hand in hand.

Reputation Management in Practice

Legal mechanisms are just one part of managing reputation. Often, the best approach is multi-layered, combining:

• Monitoring: staying aware of what’s said online and in the press.
• Proactive communication: issuing timely, factual statements to clarify misinformation.
• Platform engagement: requesting takedowns or corrections via social media or website hosts.
• Strategic response: weighing the merits of legal action versus reputational risk.

Sometimes, litigation is necessary — particularly where the damage is significant, and informal resolution has failed. Other times, discretion and diplomacy achieve more than a courtroom ever could.

A Shifting Landscape

Defamation law continues to evolve. Courts now weigh freedom of speech more carefully against the right to reputation. Social media has blurred the lines between personal expression and public accountability. At the same time, the public’s appetite for transparency means that how a person or company responds to a reputational threat often says more than the original accusation.

Conclusion: A Matter of Truth, Context, and Care

Reputation is an asset — often built over years, yet vulnerable to damage in moments. Whether the threat comes from a malicious tweet, a misleading article, or a mistaken identity, understanding the basics of defamation and taking timely, measured steps can make all the difference.

In an era of instant communication and lasting digital footprints, vigilance, clarity, and a sound grasp of defamation principles are vital for anyone seeking to protect what matters most: their name.

To find out more about defamation, contact Thomas Clark. 

43 countries were represented from all over the region, as well as from Brazil, Argentina, the USA, Mexico and, of course, like Eurovision, Australia also took part.

Alliott Global Alliance is now the fifth largest alliance in terms of coverage of law firms across the globe, and sixth in terms of accountancy firms, providing Sherrards’ clients and contacts with unparalleled professional coverage, alongside our membership of the International Bar Association, with which we are also very much involved.

The key take-away from the conference (apart from the strudel and the schnitzel) is that AI is a total game-changer for the legal profession.

What makes the Alliance work?  It’s the friendships, the relationships – and in this uncertain world, that counts for everything.

“If I look at the skyline of Vienna, I see a city of music”

– Plácido Domingo.

Our inimitable team of Paul Marmor (head of litigation and international), Jean-Paul da Costa (head of corporate) and Nicole Marmor (head of private wealth) spent some time in Vienna, the city of Mozart, art, strudel, John le Carré spies, Eurovision and, more importantly, the annual gathering of the Alliott Global Alliance EMEA.

Sherrards acted for the former Global COO, who was the First Defendant. Senior Consultant to Sherrards Fraud and Business Crime Team, Simon Morgan, headed the defence team, alongside Aleksandra Rychlewska.

Following a 9-year investigation by HMRC’s Offshore Corporate & Wealthy Division, criminal proceedings were commenced in early 2023 by the specialist division of the CPS, the Serious Economic Organised Crime and International Directorate (SEOCID). The trial commenced in February 2025 at Southwark Crown Court.

As a result of the proactive and exhaustive preparation carried out by Sherrards, instructing counsel from Libertas Chambers, the Crown offered no evidence after 6 weeks into a trial that was due to last 4 months, after accepting failures in the disclosure process.

Sherrards secured not only the acquittal of its own client, but the collapse of the entire case resulting in the acquittal of the other 5 defendants. Thanks are extended to Simon Csoka KC and Roxanne Morrell, of counsel who were retained by Sherrards, for their expertise and assistance in achieving this extraordinary result.

 

What Is the Effective Cause Principle?The “effective cause” principle is crucial in resolving these disputes. Courts typically assess whether the agency claiming the fee was the one that actively facilitated the relationship between the candidate and the hirer. This approach ensures that the agency that played a significant role in the hiring process, rather than merely being the first to introduce the candidate, is compensated.

The Importance of Clear Terms and Conditions

Clear terms and conditions are key to prevent disputes. Agencies should explicitly outline the circumstances under which they are entitled to an introduction fee. These terms should specify:

• The circumstances under which a fee is payable
• What constitutes an effective cause in the hiring process
• How long an agency can claim a right to payment after introducing a candidate

This clarity helps ensure that only the agency that significantly contributed to the placement process gets paid. In addition, whilst having clear terms and conditions is essential, agencies must do everything they can to ensure that they have drawn their terms and conditions to the attention of the hirer.

The ‘First to Introduce’ Rule

Generally, the courts do not favour the “first to introduce” rule. Instead, they look for the agency that was proactive in arranging interviews and negotiating terms. Agencies should follow up on candidate introductions promptly and manage the entire recruitment process actively to be recognized as the effective cause.

In conclusion, recruitment agencies can increase their chances of securing their fees by having clear terms and conditions, actively managing the recruitment process, and ensuring they are the effective cause of the candidate’s placement. This approach not only minimises disputes but also ensures fair compensation for the agency’s efforts.

 

To find out more about recruitment agency fees, click here or use the details below to contact us. 

Paul Marmor, Partner, and Head of Dispute Resolution and International at Sherrards is the Senior Chair of the LFMC, and addressed attendees, outlining ambitious plans for the year ahead and highlighting strategies to navigate the evolving legal landscape.

The mission of the IBA Law Firm Management Committee is to be a leading global forum for the exchange of best practices in law practice leadership and management through sharing and discussing concepts, experience, knowledge and trends on practice management issues and topics. 

The conference featured a series of thought-provoking panels and discussions, thanks to the brilliant organisation by Anne MacDonald and David Patient.

Collaboration Across Borders

Delegates engaged with dynamic moderators and panellists, exploring innovations and challenges shaping the global legal profession. The event concluded with a drinks reception hosted by Gary Assim and Shoosmiths, providing an excellent networking opportunity.

The LFMC invites Lawyers and allied legal professionals worldwide to contribute to shaping the future of the legal profession. If you’d like to get involved, reach out to Paul Marmor, or have a look on the International Bar Association website. 

The background

In this case, Sherrards were engaged to act on behalf of a recruitment agency that specialised in supplying finance professionals into various types of finance companies. The recruiter was engaged by a global private equity investment firm (“Company A”) to source a finance operations professional for them. The recruiter fulfilled the brief and sent several CVs to Company A, some of which resulted in interviews.

As sometimes happens, the recruiter did not hear further and received no indication from Company A as to whether any of the candidates had been successful. After following up with each of the candidates, it transpired in conversation with one of them that they had been hired into another company that appeared to be related to Company A. After some further investigation, it further transpired that the candidate had been hired into another company within Company A’s corporate group (“Company B”). Upon discovering this, the recruiter sought to recover its introduction fee from Company A. However, Company A maintained, for various reasons, that there had been no introduction within the meaning of the recruiter’s terms of business and that it was not liable for a fee (separately Company B was also asserting that there was no contract in place between it and the recruiter).

The Claim

Following Sherrards’ instruction, we reviewed the terms of business and the chain of events, and it was evident that there was a contract in place between Company A and the recruiter. However, what required further analysis was whether Company A was still liable for the introduction fee in circumstances where it had effected a Third Party Introduction?

Fortunately the recruiter’s terms of business had appropriate wording to cover off this situation and we were able to confidently assert that Company A would be liable for the fee in full where they have effectively made an onward introduction and the prospective candidate had subsequently been hired.

Furthermore, as Company B was a holding company of Company A, this meant it was part of its corporate group structure. This provided a second line of attack to recover the fee, as Company B was defined as an “Associated Company” within the recruiter’s terms, meaning it was as if the introduction had been made directly to Company A. The recruiter was able to recover its fee in full, swiftly, and avoided court proceedings.

Action point

The recruitment agency fee dispute case serves as a useful reminder to all recruiters that terms of business are organic documents that should be regularly reviewed and refreshed to ensure that they offer as much protection as possible, particularly in circumstances where a backdoor hire has taken place. Poorly drafted terms of business could be the difference between recovering a fee or not.

Contact us

If you would like to know more about our dispute resolution legal service, please contact Aaron Heslop for a no obligation discussion.

Moving job should be a straightforward matter, but many employees either don’t have a copy of their most recent employment contract or fail to review it before embarking on their job hunt.

What are restrictive covenants?

Restrictive covenants in employment contracts are legal clauses crafted to protect an employer’s business interests by limiting an employee’s actions during or after their employment. Common types include non-compete agreements, non-solicitation clauses, and confidentiality agreements. 

This can have a significant impact on an employee’s job hunting by restricting: 

• where they can work
• who they can approach for business
• how they use knowledge gained from their previous role

Key restrictive covenant clauses to watch out for

A well drafted employment contract will typically contain the following suite of post-termination restrictions:

Non-compete –

These clauses are inserted to prevent the employee from working for a direct competitor of their employer. A well drafted clause will normally define what is meant by a direct competitor. These clauses may even go further and say that an employee cannot set up on their own and work in competition. (Check out the government website for more details)

Non-solicitation clauses –

A clause of this type will be included in the employment contract where the employer wishes to protect against its clients and contacts from being enticed away to work with the employee somewhere else. This helps safeguard valuable business relationships.

Non-poaching clauses – 

This clause is designed to deter the employee from encouraging their former colleagues to leave their employment and join them in a new venture. This is focussed on maintaining team stability in the original company.

Non-dealing clauses –

This restriction is sometimes inserted to widen the effect of the above covenants, so that a departing employee is prevented from soliciting or poaching, but also that they cannot even deal with /or have contact with the people defined in those clauses.

Confidentiality clauses – 

This is an ongoing restriction that carries on in perpetuity. If well drafted, the clause will contain a concise list of information that is considered to be confidential and should not be utilised in any way by the employee.

Employers should also use that meeting as an opportunity to remind a departing employee of their ongoing obligation of confidentiality and any restrictive covenants they are subject to. Collectively these obligations are commonly referred to as post-termination obligations.

Action points for employers and employees

For Employers:

Conduct exit interviews: This is an opportunity for the employer to run through a checklist of items that a leaver needs to deal with before they depart e.g. returning company property, handover of work. Ensure departing employees understand their post-termination obligations. Provide written confirmation of these restrictions.

Review contracts: Regularly review employment contracts to ensure they include well-drafted and enforceable restrictive covenants in case of the event that an employee leaves the company.

Seek legal advice: Consult legal professionals to address breaches, update contract terms in line with current business needs or to enforce legal compliance from your employee.

For Employees:

Review your contract: Familiarize yourself with the restrictive covenants in your employment contract before pursuing a new job.

Seek clarification: If you’re uncertain about any terms, request clarification from your employer in writing so clauses are clearly defined and are not ambiguous or open to interpretation.

Get legal support: Consider consulting an employment solicitor to understand how restrictive covenants may impact your job search or new role.

If you’re an employer and you’ve discovered that an employee has left and is now acting in breach of their contract or you’re an employee that’s now being pursued by your former employer, please contact Aaron Heslop for a no obligation discussion.

Furthermore, if you’re looking to review your existing employment contracts, we would recommend a discussion with our Employment Team.

Paul, as well as being the head of the firm’s litigation and dispute resolution department, is the co-vice chair of the IBA’s Law Firm Management Committee, which is one of the IBA’s leading sections made up of managing partners, senior partners and leading lights, as well as allied professionals from across the global legal profession.

Paul spoke at an LFMC session at the Paris IBA Conference on how law firms can convey their messaging publicly, on behalf of themselves and their clients, through social media, which included a stellar panel of Deborah Farone, a leading marketing strategy consultant, Olga Mach of LexisNexis, Helen Burness of Saltmarsh Marketing, and Sneha Ashtikar Roy of Jus Mundi.

The IBA is a leading voice in the global legal profession, as a networking organisation for lawyers, but it is also an important and very significant platform for extolling and promoting the rule of law, which has never been more relevant than it is today.

Sherrards are very much involved in and supportive of the IBA, which means that our clients, friends and contacts have access to professionals from across the world, frankly just about anywhere, whether it be through the IBA or our membership of the Alliott Global Alliance

For more information about our involvement in the IBA, or how we can help you through our international connectivity, please reach out to Paul Marmor on pdm@sherrards.com or +44 (0) 20 7478 9010. 

Erin, a trainee solicitor in our Dispute Resolution team, explores the recent judgment in BMW (UK) Ltd v K Group Holdings Ltd highlighting the balancing act required in respect of a landlord’s business aspirations and a commercial tenant’s rights when negotiating break clauses in a lease.

Introduction

The realm of commercial leases is a complex landscape governed by legal provisions aimed at balancing the interests of both landlords and tenants.

One such provision that plays a pivotal role in commercial lease agreements is the break clause.

Break clauses in a commercial lease are provisions that allow either the tenant or the landlord to terminate the lease before its designated end date. These clauses offer flexibility within the lease agreement, allowing parties to adapt to changing circumstances or business needs.

However, a recent decision in the County Court highlighted the difficulties that landlords can face when seeking a break clause for their business needs in a renewal lease protected by Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act).

BMW (UK) Ltd v K Group Holdings Ltd

The case concerned a car showroom in Mayfair, demised under four separate leases from the landlord, K Group Holdings Limited, to the tenant, BMW (UK) Limited.

These leases were subject to renewal proceedings under the Act and therefore, were to be granted on essentially the same terms as the previous leases.

The previous leases did not, however, contain a landlord break option. Accordingly, the onus was on the landlord to demonstrate the proposed terms were fair and reasonable and should be granted. 

If a break clause was to be included, the landlord accepted that it would have to prove a ground of opposition under s30(1) of the Act in order to exercise the break option.

HHJ Monty KC, in considering whether to grant a break clause, made it clear that the court must try and strike a balance “between granting a reasonable degree of security to the tenant on the one hand, and not preventing the landlord from recovering possession if one of the statutory grounds can be proved on the other”.

Section 30(1)(g) – Landlord’s intention to occupy the premises for the purpose of a business to be carried on by the landlord

The relevant ground in this case was ground (g), namely that on termination of the tenancy, the landlord intends to occupy the property for the purposes of a business to be carried on by the landlord.

The renewal leases themselves were unopposed and so it was for the landlord to prove that they would be able to establish ground (g) at some point in the future when exercising the break option. That is, the landlord needed to show a bona fide intention to operate the break clause if one was granted.

When giving evidence, the landlord agreed that a car business would be an entirely new business for K Group Holdings Ltd. It was further contended by the landlord’s witness that members of his family who controlled entities within the same group as the landlord were only a “little bit inclined to have a study and see the possibilities” of the electric car market. 

In this case, the landlord’s inadequate evidence and the effect the break clause would have on the tenant meant that the court found in favour of the tenant in refusing the inclusion of the landlord’s proposed break clause.

Practical considerations

This decision highlights the raising of the bar in respect of the landlord’s intention to exercise a break option, particularly where the landlord may have aspirations to start a new business venture or expand an existing one.

A landlord should ensure they can evidence a real intention that the operation of the break clause is more than a vague possibility. Therefore, evidence of any steps taken to progress the possibility of occupation for the purpose of a business would be worth documenting.

Although a complete and comprehensive business plan may not be required, the landlord should seek to substantiate any request for a break clause with supporting evidence detailing any “genuine and workable” intention to occupy the premises.

Sherrards’ Real Estate Litigation team

This article has been fact-checked and authorised by the Head of the Residential Real Estate, and Training Partner Asha Ngai. If you have any questions or thoughts, please reach out to him by clicking here.

Our Real Estate Litigation team can support you with an entrepreneurial, commercial and considered approach to break options to help you achieve your goals. Our specialist team can advise you on your options, including, where appropriate asking the court to determine the matter.

For advice and assistance, contact the Real Estate Litigation team at Sherrards.

The client/Defendant to the claim is a Central European company specialising in the production of aluminium profiles. 

A dispute arose between the parties arising out of the contract for the supply of aluminium billets, in respect of which the Claimant sought payment which the client was resisting, on the basis that the contract mechanism for determining price had not been followed and that the billets delivered were not of satisfactory quality, which caused it loss.

Karen Dobson, Partner at Sherrards, managed to negotiate an early settlement of the dispute, following the commencement of arbitration proceedings.

The settlement was very favourable to the client and resulted in it avoiding significant legal costs which would have been incurred in a fully-contested arbitration.