How we handle a defamation matter end-to-end
If you are dealing with a defamation problem online or in print, you most likely wish for three things to happen. The publication taken down. The person responsible identified and held to account. Your costs kept under control while we get there and potentially recovered. This article sets out how Cohen Davis Solicitors handle a typical defamation matter from the first call you make to the final removal, undertaking, damages payment and costs order, and what we do differently from a firm that handles defamation occasionally as part of a wider general practice.
A dedicated team that stays with you from start to finish
The same dedicated team is on your matter from your first call to the final removal. We have lawyers who are also trained in open-source intelligence, a combination that tends to be unusual in defamation work, and one that often makes the difference between a case that progresses cleanly and one that loses momentum at every handover. You get one experienced team that knows your case in detail, that can move on the technical investigation and the legal work side by side, and that does not lose continuity halfway through. That continuity is what gets you the result you want without paying the cost of a relay of handovers between separate firms.
What end-to-end defamation work looks like, and why the first letter matters
End-to-end defamation work means that members of the same team that drafts your first cease-and-desist letter, also identifies the anonymous defendant if needed, leads the negotiation, drafts the claim form, handles the disclosure and witness work, takes the matter to trial or settlement, and follows through on removal across the platforms where the original publication may have been mirrored. Each stage feeds the next. We calibrate the wording of the first letter for what we may need to prove later. Evidence we gather with you in the first weeks could end up in the trial bundles months later if the matter goes that far.
The first letter matters more than most clients realise. A pre-action letter is your opening move in work that may, if the recipient does not engage, end in litigation in the High Court. We prepare your letter in that light, with the strategic merits review behind it, with the investigative groundwork we have done with you, and with the team and resources ready to take the matter forward. A letter prepared that way is recognised for what it is: the opening move in a piece of work the recipient may need to take seriously. Defendants and their advisers may read the signals around a pre-action letter carefully, and they often calibrate their response to what they see sitting behind it.
This is why many of the matters we handle resolve on the warning letter and without our clients having to go through court proceedings at all. The letter is the first chapter of integrated work that has been planned strategically from the start, and the recipient may well read it as such.
A worked example: police defamation, twice
Two cases from our practice illustrate the end-to-end approach particularly clearly because they both involve defamation by the police, and both depended on the firm being willing to take a position other firms would not have taken.
The case of Selvaratnam Suresh v The Metropolitan Police. Mr Suresh came to us after a senior Metropolitan Police officer made statements about him that he believed were defamatory. The defamation was deliberately spread and we needed to find out who some of those defamers were and how and why they tried to conceal their identity. The Met's initial defence was that the statements were protected by absolute privilege, the legal principle that statements made in the course of certain official functions cannot found a defamation claim, regardless of their truth or the harm caused. On the textbook reading of the defence, this often ends the matter at the pre-action stage. We took a different view. Absolute privilege is not automatic and does not cover every statement made by a police officer in the course of police work. Whether the privilege applies depends on the function the officer was performing when the statement was made, the context of the publication, and whether the statement falls inside the protected category as a matter of statutory and common-law construction. Those are questions of law that have to be worked through on the facts; they are not to be conceded in correspondence. We took the matter forward and won the defamation claim against the Metropolitan Police. You can read the full case at the case of Selvaratnam Suresh v The Met Police.
The case of TJM v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Our client TJM was a serving Royal Marine Officer going through custody arrangements with his former partner. His former partner made a complaint to the police that he was allegedly using controlling and coercive conduct toward her. The police then made statements about him that he said were defamatory. We acted in the resulting defamation claim against West Yorkshire Police. The matter again required us to look past the standard police-immunity arguments at the specific function being performed and the specific context of the publication. You can read the case at TJM v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and the judgement at the judgement in TJM v West Yorkshire Police.
The point we want you to take from both cases is this: the result came from declining to accept the textbook position in the first letter, and from building the case for the alternative reading with our client from the start. A firm that was not going to take either case forward could not have written the first letter the way we did, and may not have got the result we eventually obtained. The same logic may apply to defamation matters against any kind of defendant, not just police forces. The same shape comes up in Brian Dudley v Michael Phillips, in the high-profile matter Jack Aaronson v Marcus Stones. Different defendants, different jurisdictions, different defences, yet the same end-to-end strategic approach.
The four outcomes we work toward with you, and what we do to get there
A defamation client usually wants four things. The publication taken down. The defendant identified and held to account. Compensation paid. Costs recovered. The procedural detail tends to matter less to most clients than the work we do to produce each outcome, so we have organised this section around the outcomes themselves and what sits behind each one.
Outcome 1 – Removal of the publication
The first outcome most clients want is the publication taken down. We pursue this on three tracks working in parallel. The first is the warning letter to the defendant under the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation, which often produces voluntary removal without our clients having to go to court. The second is direct engagement with the platform under its own internal takedown process, which can be the faster route on Google reviews, Facebook posts and X / Twitter content. The third, where neither of the first two produces the result, is an interim injunction or a removal order from the court. Across all three tracks we follow through with you on mirror sites and republications, not only on the original posting.
Outcome 2 – Identification of the defendant
Where the publisher is anonymous, identification work progresses in parallel with the removal work from the first week. Our OSINT-trained lawyers and our in-house investigators work through the publisher's writing style, posting patterns, cross-platform handles, and the wider evidence base. Where the open-source work needs reinforcement, we apply for a Norwich Pharmacal order against UK platforms or a section 1782 application against US-based platforms. We identify the substantial majority of anonymous publishers within weeks, often without any court application being required. You can read more on the identification work at how we identify anonymous internet users using open-source intelligence.
Outcome 3 – Compensation
We negotiate damages with the defendant or, where your matter calls for it, seek a court order. We work with you from the first weeks of the matter to build the evidence the damages claim may need: the reach of the publication, the engagement metrics, the offline consequences (lost contracts, lost clients, professional sanctions, the impact on your wellbeing), and the harm done to your standing. Compensation is usually negotiated as part of the settlement. Where the matter goes to trial, the court awards general damages for the harm and special damages for the financial loss. Where the conduct has been particularly serious, aggravated and exemplary damages may also be available.
Outcome 4 – A costs order in your favour
A defamation claim that succeeds usually carries a costs order in the claimant's favour. The detail matters. The costs order covers a substantial proportion of the legal costs you have incurred (not always all of them), and it is enforceable in the same way as a money judgment. We build the cost-recovery picture with you from instruction, calibrated to the protocol so that the eventual costs order may be as comprehensive as the matter allows. Where the defendant may not be able to satisfy a costs order, for instance an individual without assets or a dissolved company, we discuss that with you at the strategic merits review, before costs are incurred.
How a typical case tends to unfold while we work toward those outcomes
A defamation matter at Cohen Davis tends to follow a familiar shape. We start with a strategic merits review at our first meeting, where we look at the publication through your situation, your life and the outcome you actually want, and where we tell you our honest read on the defences likely to come up. From the first week we begin building the evidence with you and starting the identification work where the defendant is anonymous. The first formal step is usually a pre-action letter of claim under the Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation, calibrated for the specific defendant, the specific publication and the specific outcome you want. The defendant has a window to respond and we handle that window with you: correspondence, calls, mediation where appropriate. Where the warning letter and the negotiation that follows do not produce the result you need, we issue a claim in the High Court on the strategy we have agreed with you, and we make any applications your matter may call for (Norwich Pharmacal orders, section 1782 applications, interim injunctions, costs-capping orders). Disclosure is intensive but it is the work that often produces favourable settlements before trial. At resolution, we get the publication removed, we secure an undertaking from the defendant not to repeat or republish, we secure damages, and the court makes a costs order in your favour. We do not stop at the order or the settlement: we follow through on removal across any platforms where the publication may have been mirrored, we monitor for republication, and we enforce the undertakings if they are breached.
What we have access to that most firms handling occasional defamation work do not
Three things distinguish our defamation work at the operational level. They are connected, not separate.
In-house OSINT investigators and developers
Many defamation matters open with the question of who is behind an anonymous account, whether that is an anonymous X / Twitter handle, an anonymous Google review or an anonymous defamatory blog. Most firms refer this work out to a discovery boutique or wait for a court order to produce a name. We do not. Some of our lawyers are trained in open-source intelligence, and we have our own investigators and developers in-house who support that work. We usually begin the identification work in Stage 2 of our approach (building the evidence with you) and we progress it in parallel with the warning letter or the negotiation. The technical investigation and the substantive case live with the same team. You can read more on how we identify anonymous internet users using open-source intelligence at how we identify anonymous internet users using open-source intelligence.
Cross-jurisdiction reach – UK and US
Internet defamation is rarely confined to one country. The publication is hosted on a US platform, the defendant is in another jurisdiction, the claimant is in the UK, the evidence sits on servers in three places. We are set up to handle this. We conduct UK High Court proceedings; we obtain identification orders against US-based platforms under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) in US federal court; we coordinate with US counsel on cross-border enforcement of UK judgments; and we work directly with the major platforms (Google, Meta, X) under their own internal disclosure and takedown processes where that is the faster route. The cross-jurisdiction work is part of the same matter, not a separate file.
A specialist team focused only on internet law
We only do internet law. Defamation, harassment, blackmail, privacy, right to be forgotten, disclosure, domain disputes, media law. We do not do conveyancing, family work, criminal defence, employment claims or anything else. The team that handles your defamation matter has been acting in this kind of work for years and brings the patterns of hundreds of matters to bear on yours. Firms that handle a defamation case every few months cannot match the calibration that comes from being instructed on these matters week in and week out.
How defamation work sits alongside disclosure, OSINT and harassment work
A defamation matter rarely sits in a tidy box. The publication may be part of a wider course of conduct that could also amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The defendant may be anonymous, in which case we may need to do identification work with you before we can issue defamation proceedings. The publication may include a threat to publish more, which could amount to blackmail and call for an emergency injunction. The publication may also breach your data-protection rights under the UK GDPR.
We handle these workstreams with you as one matter, not as four separate files. Our first meeting covers all of them. We identify with you which causes of action stand the best chance of producing the outcome you want. We draft the warning letter to the most appropriate cause of action (sometimes defamation, sometimes harassment, sometimes a hybrid). We use whichever procedural route is the fastest to the outcome you want: a Norwich Pharmacal order for identification, an interim injunction for ongoing harm, a defamation claim for damages and removal, a harassment claim where the conduct pattern is broader than a single publication. The integration is the point.
Why this approach often brings clients the result they want
A defamation client usually wants the publication removed, the conduct stopped, the defendant identified and held to account, compensation paid, costs recovered, and the whole matter resolved on a timeline that does not consume the rest of your year. We tend to achieve each of these outcomes more reliably when our team sees the matter through from the first letter to the final removal.
We can pursue removal across platforms more thoroughly because we know which platforms the publication may have been mirrored on, and we follow up on each. Identification tends to be more reliable because our OSINT-trained lawyers have been working on your matter alongside the legal work from week one. We may negotiate damages more effectively because we know what evidence sits in the disclosure bundles and what the defendant could face at trial. You may secure a costs order more comfortably when we have calibrated your conduct of the matter to the protocol from the start. Your timeline tends to be shorter when no work has to be redone by a second firm taking over halfway through.
Where one or more of these outcomes may be out of reach (for instance where the defendant cannot be identified, where the defendant has no assets, where the publication has a real defence on the merits, or where the cost of pursuing the matter could exceed its value), we say so. We do not promise every outcome to every client. Our aim is to make each outcome as reliably achievable as the facts of your situation allow.
Why this approach often saves our clients money
Internet defamation work is not cheap. Court fees, counsel fees, expert fees and solicitor fees stack up on a contested claim. The end-to-end approach we take tends to cost less than the alternative of breaking the matter across multiple firms or accepting a partial outcome you may have to fix later.
Three things may work in your favour on cost. First, we calibrate the warning letter to produce the outcome at the earliest stage, so many matters settle on the letter without our clients having to go through court proceedings, which is the cheapest possible resolution for you. Second, our in-house identification work means you may not need to engage a separate discovery boutique on a separate file at a separate hourly rate. Third, we build your case from the start to the merits standard a trial may require, which means the work we do with you in the early stages could end up in the trial bundles if the matter goes that far. Nothing tends to be wasted, and we rarely have to redo anything.
We can also take selected defamation matters on a no win no fee basis under Conditional Fee Agreements, particularly where the merits are strong and the defendant has the means to satisfy a judgment. You can read more on our fee-structure options at no win no fee defamation solicitor.
Indicative cost bands for the matters we handle, before any no win no fee arrangement is factored in:
- Cease-and-desist letter, with full pre-letter merits review and evidence work: from £2,500.
- Full defamation claim, resolved without our clients having to go through court proceedings: typically £5,000 to £15,000.
- Defamation claim with proceedings issued, settling before trial: typically £15,000 to £40,000, depending on complexity, defendant cooperation and the jurisdictions in play.
- Defamation claim taken to trial: from £40,000, depending heavily on the issues that may go to trial and the experts called.
These are indicative bands for matters we have acted in, not fixed quotes. The variables include the complexity of the publication, how responsive the defendant is, whether identification work may be needed, whether the matter crosses jurisdictions, and whether we may need counsel and experts. We will discuss the cost picture with you at every stage of your matter, not only at instruction.
Why we built this capability rather than outsourcing it
The standard model in internet defamation work is to refer the technical investigation out and to refer the US-side work out. That model creates handover points, and each handover point costs money, time and accuracy. The OSINT investigator on a referred file does not know what the case theory will be in three months' time. The US firm does not know what was said in the UK pre-action correspondence. The pieces do not align.
We built the OSINT capability in-house, and we built the US-jurisdiction reach as part of the same practice, because the integration is what tends to produce the result for our clients. Our investigators sit with our lawyers as we shape the case theory together. We draft the US application in the knowledge of what we have said in the UK pleadings. The team is aligned because we are one team. We do not need to outsource. We have built what we need inside the firm.
This is a deliberate choice and it carries its own cost. We have to recruit and retain specialist investigators alongside lawyers, and we have to maintain the technology and the licensed databases the work relies on. The trade-off is worth it because the alternative (handover, re-briefing, partial visibility, lost continuity) tends to produce worse outcomes for clients on most matters.
Lawyers' thoughts on defamation work
A few honest observations from years of acting in these matters that may be useful for someone deciding whether and how to proceed.
In our experience, speed matters more than the protocol may acknowledge. The Pre-Action Protocol for Defamation sets a response window, but the practical reality is that every day a defamatory publication stays up is a day it is being read, screenshot, shared and indexed by search engines. Where the harm to you is ongoing and substantial, we accelerate inside the protocol. Where an interim injunction is the right tool, we apply for it.
Anonymous defendants are also no longer the problem they once were. A decade ago, an anonymous publisher was often the end of the matter. Today, with our OSINT work sitting alongside Norwich Pharmacal and section 1782 jurisdiction, we can identify the substantial majority of anonymous publishers within weeks. Readers who come to us thinking their case is hopeless because they cannot name the defendant are usually wrong about that.
It is also worth saying that truth is not the only defence, and not always the strongest one. Truth is the defence that gets the most public attention, but in our experience honest opinion, qualified privilege and statutory absolute privilege are the defences that close more matters. The Suresh case turned on the absolute privilege defence being inapplicable on the facts, not on the truth or falsity of what had been said. Our strategic merits review at the first meeting considers each available defence on its own terms and what may apply on the facts of your situation.
Public-figure claimants face a harder road than most, but not an impossible one. Public figures who bring defamation claims tend to be scrutinised more closely than other claimants. We have to be more rigorous in the merits review, build the evidence with you more carefully, and think through the strategic position more carefully. We act for public figures and we know what tends to work.
A final point worth making is that the position you commit to in the first letter tends to set the shape of the whole case. The wording of the first letter often binds you through the rest of the matter. This is the reason a specialist drafts these documents, and not a generalist or an automated tool. Where this applies to your situation, we will say so.
Frequently asked questions
How long does an internet defamation matter usually take?
Many matters resolve within four to eight weeks of our sending the warning letter. Where we need to issue proceedings, the typical timeline to trial is twelve to eighteen months, with most matters settling before that point. Where we need to do identification work first, add four to twelve weeks for the OSINT and any court applications.
What does it mean for a statement to be defamatory in law?
A statement is defamatory if it lowers you in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or causes you to be shunned and avoided. Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, the statement also has to have caused or be likely to cause serious harm to your reputation. For companies that trade for profit, serious harm means serious financial loss.
Can I bring a defamation claim against an anonymous publisher?
Yes. We routinely identify anonymous publishers through our in-house OSINT work and, where needed, through Norwich Pharmacal orders against platforms in the UK and section 1782 applications in the US. Most anonymous defendants are identified before proceedings need to be issued.
Do I have to issue court proceedings, or can the matter resolve with a letter?
Many of the matters we handle resolve on the warning letter, without our clients having to go through court proceedings at all. Whether a letter is enough may depend on the defendant, the defences they could raise, and the outcome you want. We give you our honest read at the strategic merits review at Stage 1.
What can I recover if I win a defamation claim?
Removal of the publication, an undertaking not to repeat or republish, damages for the harm caused (general and special damages), and a costs order in your favour. Where the matter has been particularly serious, a statement in open court or a public apology can also be ordered or agreed.
What is the limitation period for a defamation claim in the UK?
One year from the date of publication, under section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980. The court has a discretion to extend the limitation period in some circumstances, but the safer assumption is that we may need to issue proceedings within twelve months. If you are reading this and your publication is approaching twelve months old, contact us now.
Can you act for me on a no win no fee basis?
We can offer no win no fee arrangements under Conditional Fee Agreements on selected matters, particularly where the merits are strong and the defendant has the means to satisfy a judgment. Full details are at no win no fee defamation solicitor.
What if the defamation is on a platform based outside the UK?
We handle cross-jurisdiction defamation as a matter of routine. UK High Court proceedings against UK-relevant defendants combined with US federal court applications under section 1782 against US-based platforms is the standard approach. Where the matter touches further jurisdictions, we coordinate with overseas counsel as part of the same file.
Need Help Now?
If you are dealing with a defamation matter and want a straight answer on whether we can help and what it would cost, contact Cohen Davis for a fixed-fee initial consultation. We will tell you whether the matter is one we should take forward, what the realistic outcome looks like, what the cost picture is, and what we would do first.
