Wrongly circulated as wanted by the press
The media can perform a valuable role in the detection of crime. However, sometimes they can get it badly wrong with profound consequences. We have acted in many cases where newspapers have used the wrong photograph or personal details in connection with an article covering a criminal investigation or prosecution. This will often be as a result of a simple mistake: photographs getting mixed up or a journalist getting confused between individuals with the same or similar names. Sometimes blame may lie with the police instead of, or as well as, the media.
Sloppy journalism can be ruinous. Being branded a criminal in a newspaper and online can have a devastating impact on your reputation. In some instances (e.g. where you are accused of sexual offences) it may even put you in physical danger. It is important to act quickly to limit the damage and to seek vindication.
At Brett Wilson LLP we have experts who can help and advise you on the merit of prospective claims for defamation, misuse of private information and harassment against the press and/or the police.
We can assist with the following:
- Seeking the urgent removal of content online
Negotiating:-
- Published apologies, corrections and statements in open court
- Undertakings not to republish
- Compensation
If liability is denied or quantum cannot be agreed we can issue proceedings on your behalf seeking damages, an injunction and legal costs.
Why should I instruct Brett Wilson LLP?
In short, to ensure that you have the best team fighting for you and to maximize your prospects of success. Defamation law is notoriously complex and it is generally ill-advised to instruct non-specialist lawyers. Our work and client care is of the highest standard. All cases are run by a specialist defamation solicitor. Every matter has partner involvement.
We have long-standing working relationships with the best media law KCs and junior barristers, whom we can draft into the team to represent you in court if the need arises. We regularly act against the mainstream press and media and local newspaper groups. Based on this experience, we tend to have a good insight into how a particular defendant will assess your claim. If there is a good settlement to be negotiated, we are confident we are well placed to achieve it. If there is a case to be litigated, we are confident we can help you seek the best result.
As well as being listed in the prestigious Legal 500, Chambers and Partners and The Times Best Law Firms directories as a leading firm in the fields of defamation, privacy and reputation management law, partners Iain Wilson, Max Campbell and Tom Double are all individually recognised as leading individuals. Iain Wilson and Max Campbell are additionally recommended by the Spear’s 500 HNWI directory for their reputation management work. Iain Wilson is also recommended in the Tatler Address Book. Most importantly, the firm receives excellent feedback from its clients and contemporaries.
Litigation can be stressful, time consuming and costly. Therefore at the outset of your case we will conduct a cost benefit analysis with you. We will talk you through this process. We offer honest and pragmatic advice to our clients. We will always consider alternative options, including asserting other causes of action (such as harassment and the misuse of private information), approaching intermediaries or PR work.
How do I instruct Brett Wilson LLP?
The first step is to attend a preliminary consultation. At the consultation we will advise you on the merits of any claim, talk through the relevant practical and legal issues, and set out your options. We will review relevant documentation ahead of the consultation. The consultation will help you understand your position and allow you to make an informed decision about what action to take.
Consultations take place in our London offices or by Zoom/Teams/telephone. We can also travel to you.
To request a consultation please send us an email, complete our online enquiry form or call us on 020 7183 8950. If emailing or using the online form, please provide a short outline of your situation.
Details of the cost of a consultation will be provided following your enquiry.
We regret that we are unable to review your case, consider papers or provide advice prior to a consultation or without being formally instructed.
We do not offer alternative funding arrangements.
Contact us to request a consultation
Call 020 7183 8950
or send us a message.
Notable reported cases
- Mir v Hussain & Ors [2024] EWHC 56 (KB)
- Ley v Crosbie [2023] EWHC 2626 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse [2023] EWCA Civ 874
- Wai v Kywe (2023)
- Evans v McMahon (2023)
- Embery v Grady (2023) (SIOC)
- Global Processing Services (UK) Ltd v Yanpolsky & Anor [2023] EWHC 425 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse [2022] EWHC 3011 (KB)
- Smith v Backhouse (2022) (SIOC)
- Dew v Mills-Nanyn [2022] EWHC 1925 (QB)
- Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1688 (QB)
- GUH v KYT [2021] EWHC 1854 (QB)
- Hopkinson v British Mensa Limited (2021) (SIOC)
- Blackledge v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994
- Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 143 (QB)
- Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672
- JQL v NTP [2020] EWHC 1349 (QB)
- Riley & Anor v Heybroek [2020] EWHC 1259 (QB)
- Al Sadik v Sadik [2019] EWHC 2717 (QB)
- Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd and Telegraph Media Group Ltd (2019) (SIOC)
- Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 1525 (QB)
- Life 2009 Ltd v Lambeth London Borough Council (2019) (SIOC)
- Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB)
- Zarb-Cousin v Association of British Bookmakers & Anor [2018] EWHC 2240 (QB)
- SWS v Department for Work and Pensions [2018] EWHC 2282 (QB)
- Galloway v Ali-Khan [2018] EWHC 780 (QB)
- Singh v Weayou [2017] EWHC 2102 (QB)
- Guise v Shah [2017] EWHC 1689 (QB)
- Brett Wilson LLP v Persons Unknown [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB)
- QRS v Beach & Anor [2015] EWHC 1489 (QB)
- Myers v Ong (2014) (SIOC)
- Myers v Ryce (2014) (SIOC)
- QRS v Beach & Anor [2014] EWHC 3057 (QB)
- Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68
- The Law Society & Ors v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB)
- Kordowski v Hudson [2011] EWHC 2667 (QB)