When does a bad Google review become defamatory? Paul Little Construction Ltd v Byrne [2026] EWHC 2577 (KB)

I acted as solicitor with conduct for the claimant in Paul Little Construction Limited v Byrne [2026] EWHC 2577 (KB), a recent High Court decision concerning two negative Google Business reviews.

The judgment, which was handed down on 12 October 2026,

is a useful reminder that describing something as a “review” or “opinion” does not automatically take it outside the law of defamation. Online reviews often contain a mixture of opinion and factual allegation, and the distinction matters.

The case remains ongoing. The High Court has determined preliminary issues concerning meaning, fact and opinion, the basis of any opinion, and whether the publications were defamatory at common law. Questions including serious financial loss and the substantive statutory defences remain to be determined.

What was the case about?

The claimant, Paul Little Construction Limited, is a building contractor operating in Devon and Cornwall.

The defendant had instructed the company to carry out building works at his home. Following a dispute, he posted two one-star reviews on Google Business.

The reviews contained strongly expressed criticism of the claimant’s workmanship and warnings to prospective customers not to instruct the company. They also contained factual assertions, including that the defendant had been required to spend thousands of pounds paying another contractor to carry out corrective work and, in the first review, that the claimant had failed to honour a written promise to pay for such work.

A trial of preliminary issues took place before Mr Justice Eardley on 5 October 2026.

Fact or opinion?

One of the most useful features of the judgment is its treatment of the distinction between fact and opinion.

Expressions such as “terrible”, “shoddy” and “extortionate” were capable of being understood as the reviewer’s subjective assessment. But that did not mean that the reviews as a whole were simply expressions of opinion.

For the first review, the Court held that the publication moved into factual territory when it asserted that corrective work had been undertaken at great cost and that the claimant had failed to honour a promise to pay for it. Those factual allegations “add substantially to the sting” of the review.

The second review was treated similarly. The allegation of poor workmanship was opinion, but the assertion that the claimant had been obliged to spend thousands of pounds on corrective work was factual. Mr Justice Eardley observed that this factual element “may well complicate the defence of this claim.” 

That distinction is important. A defendant relying on honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 faces a different exercise from a defendant seeking to prove that a factual allegation is substantially true under section 2.

Calling something a “review” does not convert every statement within it into opinion.

How much detail must a reviewer give for honest opinion?

The judgment also gives useful guidance on section 3(3) of the Defamation Act 2013.

For the honest opinion defence to apply, the statement must indicate, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.

Mr Justice Eardley emphasised that this is not an exacting test. A reviewer does not have to set out every underlying fact or provide sufficient information for the reader to decide whether the opinion is justified. What matters is that the publication indicates, at least generally, what the opinion is based upon.

The first review satisfied that requirement because it referred to the works carried out, additional costs and the alleged promise concerning corrective work.

The second review also satisfied it. Although far less detail was given, the words referring to the company having attempted to build the extension were sufficient in context to identify the subject matter upon which the opinion about workmanship was based.

That is an important distinction between identifying the basis of an opinion and ultimately establishing whether an honest person could have held that opinion on the facts.

Can an online review be defamatory if readers know reviews are subjective?

Yes.

The defendant argued that readers understand that online reviews contain a wide range of positive and negative customer experiences and that the publications therefore did not cross the common-law threshold of seriousness.

The Court rejected that argument.

Mr Justice Eardley held that the first review went beyond criticism of one building project and conveyed a wider allegation of incompetence and unreliability. Its emphatic warning to prospective customers went beyond merely asking them to “think twice”.

The Court held that allegations that a domestic building contractor was incompetent and untrustworthy, to the extent that prospective customers should not engage it, were plainly capable of having a substantially adverse effect on the way the company would be treated.

The same conclusion was reached in relation to the second review.

Importantly, the fact that the publications contained recognisable expressions of opinion, and that online businesses routinely receive mixed reviews, did not prevent them from being defamatory at common law.

Images and video matter too

There is another practical lesson in the judgment which anyone bringing or defending an online defamation claim should take seriously: identify the publication precisely.

Meaning is determined from the publication as a whole. In an online review, that can include photographs, video, headlines and other contextual material.

In Paul Little Construction, there was disagreement about precisely how many images and videos accompanied the first review. The issue did not ultimately affect the preliminary findings, but the Court expressly warned that uncertainty about what forms part of the publication can derail a trial of preliminary issues “at great expense to the parties”.

For practitioners, the lesson is simple: preserve the live publication early. Screenshots may not be enough where content is scrollable, expandable or video-based. If possible, retain a contemporaneous screen recording showing exactly what a reader would have seen.

I can say from experience that this is considerably easier to advise than to reconstruct after the event.

What happens next?

The Court held that both reviews were defamatory at common law and contained a mixture of fact and opinion.

The parties will now amend their statements of case to reflect the Court’s findings before the claim returns for further case management. Mr Justice Eardley also strongly encouraged the parties to explore mediation or other ADR, noting the significant legal costs which defamation litigation can generate.

The substantive claim therefore continues, and it would not be appropriate to comment on the unresolved factual disputes or ultimate merits.

But the preliminary judgment already provides a useful modern authority for businesses, reviewers and practitioners alike:

a negative Google review does not cease to be defamatory merely because it contains opinion, and factual allegations embedded within a review must be treated as factual allegations.

I acted for Paul Little Construction Limited as solicitor with conduct through Taylor Rose Limited. Richard Owen-Thomas of 3PB appeared for the claimant at the trial of preliminary issues.

The judgment can be read here: Paul Little Construction Limited v Michael Byrne [2026] EWHC 2577 (KB).

Author: Lucy Vaughan

17 October 2026