This page documents a disturbing pattern in the British judiciary: the gradual dismantling of freedom of expression through concerning case law and judicial decisions. As someone who has personally battled against speech restrictions for over seven years, I’ve witnessed firsthand how courts increasingly favor powerful institutions over individuals’ right to speak truth. Each case presented here represents another piece in the troubling puzzle of speech suppression that has been taking shape in the UK. These aren’t isolated incidents but rather evidence of a systematic drift away from the principles of open discourse that once underpinned our democracy. By collecting and analyzing these judgments, I hope to draw attention to this dangerous trend and inspire resistance against the quiet judicial revolution that threatens one of our most fundamental liberties. Below you’ll find detailed analyses of key cases where freedom of expression has been undermined by judicial decision-making, starting with the recent and deeply problematic Prospect v Evans judgment.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/1533.html
21st of May 2025
A Critical Analysis of Prospect v Evans: A Dangerous Precedent for Free Speech and Union Democracy
Introduction
The High Court judgment in Prospect v Evans [2024] EWHC 1533 (KB) represents a concerning development in UK defamation law with profound implications for free speech, democratic accountability within trade unions, and the interpretation of statutory law. In this case, Mrs Justice Steyn determined that trade unions have the right to sue for defamation, effectively overturning a four-decade-old precedent with reasoning that bears close scrutiny. This analysis examines why this decision appears fundamentally flawed both in its statutory interpretation and in its consideration of the broader legal and democratic principles at stake.
The Case in Context
The Facts and Procedural History
Prospect, a trade union, brought claims in defamation and malicious falsehood against Andrew Evans, a former member of the union. Evans, representing himself without legal counsel, applied for a declaration pursuant to CPR 11 that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the defamation claim, arguing that the claimant – being a trade union – lacked the necessary standing to pursue such a claim.
The central question before the court was disarmingly simple: “Does a trade union have the right to sue in defamation?” Justice Steyn ruled affirmatively, finding that under Section 10 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, Parliament had provided trade unions with sufficient personality to bring defamation actions.
The Previous Precedent: EETPU v Times Newspapers
This judgment effectively overturned the precedent established in Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union v Times Newspapers Ltd [1980] 1 QB 585 (the EETPU case). In that case, O’Connor J held that a trade union was not entitled to maintain an action for defamation in its own name because such an action must be founded on possession of a personality, and the relevant statutory provisions had the effect of removing that personality from trade unions.
The EETPU decision was based on O’Connor J’s interpretation of Section 2(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, which stated that a trade union “shall not be, or be treated as if it were a body corporate” while still allowing it to make contracts, sue and be sued in its own name, and be prosecuted in its own name.
The Historical and Legislative Context
The Evolution of Trade Union Status in English Law
To fully appreciate why Justice Steyn’s decision represents such a departure, we must understand the historical development of trade union status in English law:
- Pre-1871: Trade unions existed in legal limbo, neither recognised nor prohibited by law.
- Trade Union Act 1871: Recognised trade unions but as unincorporated associations without legal personality.
- Taff Vale Railway Co v Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants [1901] AC 426: The House of Lords introduced the concept of “quasi-corporation,” finding that trade unions had sufficient personality to be sued in their own name.
- Trade Disputes Act 1906: Partially reversed Taff Vale by providing trade unions with immunity from certain tort actions, though not altering their quasi-corporate status.
- National Union of General and Municipal Workers v Gillian [1946] KB 81: The Court of Appeal confirmed that trade unions could sue in their registered name for defamatory statements touching their reputation.
- Bonsor v Musicians’ Union [1956] AC 104: The House of Lords was divided on whether a trade union was a separate legal entity or simply a procedural device by which a fluctuating membership could sue and be sued.
- Industrial Relations Act 1971: Implemented a recommendation that unions should be bodies corporate, but this was strongly opposed by unions.
- Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974: Repealed the 1971 Act and explicitly stated that a trade union “shall not be, or be treated as if it were a body corporate” while preserving certain abilities including suing and being sued.
- Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992: Consolidated previous legislation with some amendments, stating that a trade union “is not a body corporate” and “shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate except to the extent authorised by the provisions of this Part.”
This historical progression shows Parliament’s careful calibration of trade union status, deliberately providing certain capacities while withholding others.
The Intent Behind the Legislation
The legislative history reveals Parliament’s intent to give trade unions some of the practical advantages of incorporation (the ability to contract, sue and be sued) without conferring full corporate status. This reflected unions’ own preference to avoid the regulation that would come with corporate status while retaining functional capacities.
The 1974 Act’s language explicitly preventing unions from being “treated as if [they] were a body corporate” was retained in the 1992 Act’s Section 10(2), albeit with the qualification “except to the extent authorised by the provisions of this Part.” This qualification appears to refer to specific provisions within Part I that expressly authorize corporate-like treatment, rather than providing a broad gateway to read implied authorizations throughout the Act.
Flawed Statutory Interpretation
Disregarding the Plain Language of Section 10
Justice Steyn’s interpretation of Section 10 of the 1992 Act strains its natural meaning. The relevant provisions state:
“(1) A trade union is not a body corporate but – (a) it is capable of making contracts; (b) it is capable of suing and being sued in its own name, whether in proceedings relating to property or founded on contract or tort or any other cause of action; and (c) proceedings for an offence alleged to have been committed by or on its behalf may be brought against it in its own name.
(2) A trade union shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate except to the extent authorised by the provisions of this Part.”
The judgment interprets Section 10(2)’s exception clause (“except to the extent authorised by the provisions of this Part”) as creating an implied authorization for quasi-corporate status for defamation purposes. This represents a strained reading of the statutory language.
The more natural reading is that Parliament deliberately preserved the position established in the EETPU case – that trade unions lack the necessary legal personality to sue for defamation. The consolidation Act maintained this restriction, and any change to such an established position would require clearer legislative intent.
Misapplying the Approach to Consolidation Acts
Justice Steyn correctly noted that a consolidation Act should initially be interpreted on its own terms “without reference back to earlier provisions or case law” unless “real doubt arises.” However, the judgment then proceeded to effectively dismiss the EETPU precedent without fully engaging with its reasoning or explaining why it should no longer be followed.
If the court had properly applied the principles from Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59, it would have shown greater restraint in reading implied authorizations into the statute where none are explicitly stated. Lord Wilberforce in Farrellemphasized that “self-contained statutes, whether consolidating previous law, or so doing with amendments, should be interpreted, if reasonably possible, without recourse to antecedents.”
The judgment fails to identify a “real and substantial difficulty or ambiguity which classical methods of construction cannot resolve” that would justify departing from the plain meaning of Section 10. Instead, it appears to prioritize what the court sees as a more desirable outcome over the natural reading of the statute.
The Nature of Defamation and Legal Personality
The Personal Nature of Defamation Claims
A fundamental principle of defamation law is that an action for defamation is inherently personal. As O’Connor J observed in the EETPU case: “the action for defamation is a personal matter because it is the reputation of the person which is defamed, and unless one can attach a personality to a body, it cannot sue for defamation.”
This principle has been consistently recognized in English law. In Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] AC 116, the House of Lords confirmed that a group of persons cannot be defamed as a group unless they have a collective legal personality.
Justice Steyn’s judgment fails to adequately address this foundational requirement. Section 10(1) explicitly states that “a trade union is not a body corporate,” and Section 10(2) reinforces that it “shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate” except as authorised. These provisions deliberately withhold the legal personality necessary for a defamation claim.
The False Analogy with Partnerships
The judgment draws a problematic comparison to partnerships, which can sue in their firm name. However, as recognised in Meyer & Co v Faber (No.2) [1923] 2 Ch 421, this is “a mere matter of procedure [which] does not affect the rights of parties, or create causes of action which would not otherwise exist.”
The ability of partnerships to sue in their own name is a procedural convenience, not a substantive right. Moreover, partnerships exist primarily for commercial purposes, with a defined membership and clear economic interests. Trade unions, by contrast, are membership organisations with fluctuating membership, democratic governance structures, and broader social and political purposes.
Drawing this analogy ignores the crucial distinction that Parliament has explicitly addressed the status of trade unions in legislation, specifically denying them corporate status while granting it to other entities like incorporated employers’ associations.
The Conceptual Confusion
The judgement creates conceptual confusion by suggesting that a trade union can simultaneously:
- Not be a body corporate (Section 10(1))
- Not be treated as if it were a body corporate (Section 10(2))
- Nonetheless possess sufficient personality to be defamed
This represents a logical contradiction. If an entity lacks legal personality (either as a natural person, a corporation, or by explicit statutory grant), it cannot possess a reputation distinct from its members that the law of defamation would protect.
Comparative Legal Approaches
Trade Unions and Defamation in Other Jurisdictions
A comparative perspective reveals that many jurisdictions struggle with the question of whether non-corporate entities can sue for defamation:
- United States: Under U.S. law, unincorporated associations generally cannot sue for defamation unless state statutes specifically provide otherwise. Most jurisdictions require incorporation for an organization to possess the legal personality necessary for a defamation claim.
- Australia: The uniform defamation laws in Australia permit “excluded corporations” (including non-profit organizations) to sue for defamation, but this right stems from explicit statutory provisions.
- Canada: Canadian provinces generally require legal personhood for defamation claims, though some statutory provisions may extend standing to unincorporated associations in limited circumstances.
- European Union: Various EU countries have different approaches, but many require some form of legal personhood for defamation claims.
This international context highlights that the extension of defamation rights to unincorporated associations is typically done through clear statutory provisions, not judicial interpretation of ambiguous language.
Public Interest and Democratic Concerns
Chilling Effect on Democratic Discourse
The judgment fails to adequately consider the public interest implications of allowing trade unions to sue for defamation. Trade unions are democratic organizations meant to represent their members’ interests. By enabling unions to sue members for defamation, the court has potentially armed union leadership with a powerful tool to silence internal criticism and dissent.
This is particularly concerning given that this case involved a union suing its own former member. The judgment creates a situation where a union member who criticizes their own union’s leadership or policies might face the prospect of costly defamation proceedings brought with the very membership dues they themselves have contributed.
Resource Disparities and Access to Justice
The case itself illustrates the significant resource disparity between a union—with its collective funds and access to legal teams—and individual members. Evans represented himself against the union’s professional legal team, highlighting the inherent imbalance.
This disparity creates a situation where the mere threat of defamation proceedings could silence legitimate whistleblowers or critics who simply cannot afford to defend themselves. Even if a member’s criticism of their union is justified and would ultimately be protected by a defense of truth or honest opinion, many would lack the resources to establish these defenses in court.
Transparency and Accountability Concerns
Unlike public authorities, trade unions are not subject to Freedom of Information requests. This creates a troubling asymmetry where unions now have enhanced powers to protect their reputation through defamation actions while remaining largely shielded from corresponding transparency obligations.
Members and the public have limited ability to access information about union operations, including how member dues are spent on legal proceedings against critics. This creates a significant accountability gap that the judgment exacerbates by providing unions with additional legal tools to control their public image without corresponding disclosure obligations.
The Derbyshire Principle and Its Application
In Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, the House of Lords established the principle that governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation because it would be contrary to the public interest in free expression and criticism of public bodies.
While Justice Steyn correctly notes that trade unions are not organs of government, she fails to adequately consider the similar democratic considerations that apply. Trade unions operate as representative bodies with governance structures, elections, and policy-making powers that affect their members and, indirectly, the broader public.
The Derbyshire principle’s underlying reasoning—that the threat of defamation actions by powerful organizations against individuals could create a chilling effect on legitimate criticism—applies with similar force to trade unions, particularly in their relationship with their own members.
Practical Consequences and Likely Impacts
Potential Scenarios
The judgment’s practical consequences could be far-reaching:
- Internal Democracy: A union member who questions the financial management of their union in a members’ meeting or newsletter might face defamation proceedings, effectively silencing internal debate.
- Whistleblowing: A union employee who raises concerns about potential misconduct by union officials might be deterred by the threat of defamation actions.
- Media Coverage: Journalists investigating union activities might face legal threats, reducing public scrutiny of union operations.
- Member Advocacy: Members advocating for changes in union policy or leadership might be silenced by the prospect of costly litigation.
- Online Speech: Members expressing criticism on social media or in online forums could face defamation claims, creating a chilling effect on digital discourse.
These scenarios illustrate how the judgement could fundamentally alter the balance of power between unions and their members, as well as between unions and the public.
Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP)
The judgment potentially enables trade unions to engage in SLAPP litigation—lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of legal defense. While anti-SLAPP legislation has been proposed in the UK, it remains incomplete, leaving critics of powerful organisations vulnerable.
The resource disparity between unions and individual members makes this particularly concerning. Even if a defamation claim ultimately fails, the process itself can be financially ruinous and emotionally devastating for individuals, creating a powerful deterrent to legitimate criticism.
How the Court Should Have Ruled:
A Proper Statutory Interpretation
If I were a judge hearing this case, I would likely have reached a different conclusion based on:
- The clear statutory language: Section 10(2) explicitly limits treating a trade union as if it were a body corporate. The natural reading of this provision is that Parliament deliberately withheld corporate status from trade unions, including the personality necessary to bring defamation claims.
- The EETPU precedent: O’Connor J’s judgment directly addressed this question and deserves significant weight. The consolidation Act did not materially change the relevant provisions, suggesting Parliament was content with the interpretation in EETPU.
- The nature of defamation claims: Defamation claims fundamentally require legal personhood, which Parliament explicitly denied to trade unions. The ability to “sue and be sued” in Section 10(1)(b) is a procedural provision that doesn’t create substantive rights.
- Interpretative restraint: A cautious approach to reading implied authorizations into consolidation statutes would respect Parliament’s role in making policy decisions about which entities should have defamation rights.
- The balance of public interest: The potential chilling effect on legitimate criticism and democratic discourse within unions would counsel against extending defamation rights to unions without clear legislative intent.
The Proper Judgment
The proper approach would have been to hold that Parliament, in Section 10 of the 1992 Act, maintained the position established in EETPU that trade unions lack the necessary legal personality to sue for defamation. The consolidation Act preserved this restriction, and any change to such an established position would require clearer legislative intent.
This would respect the proper separation of powers, leaving it to Parliament to decide whether trade unions should have defamation rights, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, rather than having courts infer such rights from ambiguous statutory language.
The Role of Parliament and Potential Reform
Legislative Clarification
This case highlights the need for legislative clarification. Parliament should consider:
- Explicit statutory provisions: Clearly state whether trade unions can sue for defamation, rather than leaving this to judicial interpretation.
- Balanced protections: If such rights are granted, provide corresponding protections for legitimate criticism, particularly by members.
- Enhanced transparency: Consider extending FOI obligations to balance any defamation rights granted to unions.
- Resource implications: Address the resource disparity between unions and individual members in defamation proceedings.
- Specific defenses: Create specific defenses for legitimate criticism of union activities, particularly by members.
These reforms would provide clarity and balance, protecting both unions’ legitimate reputational interests and the essential democratic principle of free expression within representative organizations.
Conclusion
The judgment in Prospect v Evans represents a deeply flawed interpretation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. By enabling trade unions to sue for defamation, the court has created a dangerous precedent that could chill legitimate criticism, undermine union democracy, and upset the careful balance Parliament struck between unions’ rights and responsibilities.
This case demonstrates how deep pockets can potentially rewrite civil liberties in UK courts, undermining freedom of expression and the right to criticize powerful institutions. It stands as a cautionary tale about judicial overreach and the importance of maintaining established legal principles that protect free speech and democratic accountability.
The judgment strains the natural reading of the statute to reach a conclusion that effectively overturns established precedent without a clear legislative basis for doing so. Parliament, not the courts, should decide whether trade unions should have the right to sue for defamation, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse.
Until Parliament addresses this issue, the judgment creates a troubling imbalance of power between unions and their members, potentially allowing unions to use their collective resources to silence individual critics through the threat of defamation proceedings. This undermines the very democratic principles that trade unions are built upon and represents a significant step backward for freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.
21st May 2025
NHS Fife’s Failed Attempt to Ban Public Access to Transgender Workplace Tribunal Raises Serious Open Justice Concerns
In a concerning move that runs counter to principles of open justice, NHS Fife recently attempted to bar public access to a high-profile employment tribunal involving transgender workplace rights. The tribunal, which rejected this request, has upheld the public’s right to witness these proceedings when they resume in July 2025.
The Case and the Attempted Blackout
The employment tribunal centres on nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended from her position at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy after complaining about sharing changing facilities with Dr. Beth Upton, a transgender doctor. Dr. Upton subsequently filed allegations of bullying and harassment against Ms. Peggie.
While initial hearings in February were publicly accessible via online streaming, NHS Fife sought to severely restrict future public access by:
- Limiting viewing access to accredited media only
- Revoking access for “Tribunal Tweets,” a social media account providing live coverage on X (formerly Twitter)
The health board attempted to justify these restrictions by citing vague “technical issues” and “interruptions” allegedly caused by unaccredited observers, claiming these resulted in “significant delays.” However, the tribunal found these arguments insufficient to override the public interest in transparent proceedings.
It appears NHS Fife was attempting to curate access to only certain journalists whom they potentially believed they could more easily influence, whilst blocking both ordinary members of the public and independent social media reporters.
A Victory for Open Justice
The tribunal’s rejection of NHS Fife’s request represents a crucial win for judicial transparency in the digital age. By ruling that “those beyond the accredited press had a legitimate interest in the proceedings,” the tribunal acknowledged that public scrutiny is a fundamental aspect of our justice system.
As Scottish Conservative equalities spokesperson Tess White MSP noted, the decision was “a victory for common sense,” calling it “appalling” that the health board was “hellbent on keeping the public in the dark from proceedings.”
Broader Implications
This case occurs against the backdrop of evolving legal interpretations of transgender rights in the UK. The incidents in question took place before the UK Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that defined “woman” by biological sex under equalities law.
The attempt to restrict public access raises troubling questions about institutional transparency, particularly in cases addressing sensitive but important social issues. When public bodies seek to limit scrutiny of legal proceedings, it undermines confidence in both the process and the institutions themselves.
The Future of Open Hearings
As employment tribunals increasingly utilise virtual access options, establishing precedents for public access becomes crucial. This ruling affirms that modern open justice extends beyond physical courtroom attendance to include virtual observation and real-time social media reporting.
The hearings are scheduled to resume on 16 July 2025, and will now remain accessible to the public – as they should be in a society committed to transparent legal proceedings.
This case serves as a reminder that attempts to restrict public access to legal proceedings must be met with scepticism and careful scrutiny, regardless of the sensitive nature of the underlying issues.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1w3q195zpjo
5th of June 2025
A Deeply Flawed Judgment: How Summerfield Browne v Waymouth Exposes Everything Wrong with Our Legal System
An analysis of how a £200 consumer dispute became a £25,000 nightmare – and what it reveals about access to justice in modern Britain
The High Court judgment in Summerfield Browne Ltd v Waymouth [2021] EWHC 85 (QB) should serve as a stark warning about how our legal system can be weaponised against ordinary consumers. The full judgment is available at:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2021/85.html
What began as a £200 dispute over legal advice ended with a consumer ordered to pay £25,000 in damages for leaving a negative Trustpilot review. This case exposes fundamental flaws in how our courts handle the collision between consumer rights and commercial reputation.
The David and Goliath Setup
Philip Waymouth, an ordinary consumer, paid £200 for legal advice from commercial law firm Summerfield Browne. Dissatisfied with the service, he left a scathing Trustpilot review calling them “another scam solicitor” and claiming they provided “just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me.”
The law firm’s response? Sue him for defamation, claiming £25,000 in damages.
The power imbalance was stark from the outset:
- Summerfield Browne: Professional legal expertise, represented by counsel, intimate knowledge of defamation law
- Waymouth: Ordinary consumer, no legal representation, facing potential financial ruin
This wasn’t a level playing field – it was a professional boxer facing an untrained opponent.
A Trial That Wasn’t: When Only One Side Shows Up
Waymouth chose not to defend the case, stating he wouldn’t give it “credence or legitimacy by attending.” Whether this was principled protest or financial necessity, the result was devastating: a trial where only the claimant’s evidence was heard.
Master Cook accepted uncritically:
- The law firm’s own assessment that they provided adequate service
- Unchallenged business impact figures (weekly enquiries allegedly dropping from 50-60 to 30-40)
- The characterisation of Waymouth as simply an unreasonable customer
We have no idea whether any of this was true. The defendant’s version – that he received poor service worth complaining about – was never properly examined. In effect, this became a show trial where the accused wasn’t present to defend themselves.
Judicial Mischaracterisation: Turning Consumer Rights Into Extortion
Perhaps most troublingly, Master Cook fundamentally misrepresented Waymouth’s conduct. The judgment states that Waymouth “sought money as a price for removing the review” and that this “wholly undermines the defence of public interest.”
But look at what Waymouth actually said: he offered to withdraw his review “should they refund my £200 +vat.”
This isn’t extortion – it’s a standard consumer remedy. Requesting a refund for allegedly poor service and agreeing to withdraw a complaint if satisfied is entirely legitimate consumer behaviour. Yet the judge characterised this as improper conduct undermining Waymouth’s credibility.
This mischaracterisation became a key factor in rejecting the public interest defence. It’s a judicial error that reveals a concerning misunderstanding of basic consumer rights.
The £25,000 Question: Proportionality Gone Mad
The damages award – £25,000 – represents 125 times the original service fee. For a consumer dispute that began over £200, this is grotesquely disproportionate.
The award was based entirely on the law firm’s unchallenged claims about business impact. No independent verification, no alternative explanations explored, no consideration that a professional services firm losing business might reflect genuine service issues rather than defamatory harm.
Even more concerning: the judgment rejected the claim for additional special damages (£300 per day) due to insufficient evidence, yet somehow found the general damages claim sufficiently proven on the same evidence base. The reasoning is internally inconsistent.
Access to Justice: A System That Excludes the Ordinary
This case exposes the brutal reality of civil litigation for ordinary consumers:
Financial barriers are insurmountable:
- Legal representation costs potentially tens of thousands
- Risk of adverse costs orders if you lose
- No legal aid for defamation cases
- Result: Only the wealthy can afford to defend themselves
Procedural complexity favours professionals:
- Defamation law is notoriously complex
- Professional parties understand the system
- Ordinary consumers are out of their depth
- Result: David never had a chance against Goliath
Risk-reward calculation is impossible:
- Potential liability vastly exceeds original dispute value
- Defending becomes economically irrational
- Result: Consumers forced to accept unjust outcomes
The Chilling Effect: Silencing Consumer Voices
The real damage from this judgment extends far beyond Waymouth himself. The message to consumers is clear: criticise professional services at your financial peril.
Consider the implications:
- Consumers afraid to leave honest negative reviews
- Small service disputes escalating to potentially ruinous consequences
- Professional services insulated from legitimate criticism
- Online review platforms losing credibility as spaces for honest feedback
This undermines the entire consumer protection ecosystem. If people cannot safely share their experiences, how can others make informed choices?
What Should Have Happened
A properly functioning legal system would have:
- Required proper evidence: Business impact claims should have been independently verified, not simply accepted from the claimant’s own solicitor
- Understood consumer rights: Requesting a refund is legitimate consumer behaviour, not evidence of improper conduct
- Applied proportionality: £25,000 damages for a £200 service dispute fails any reasonable proportionality test
- Considered public interest: Honest consumer feedback, even if intemperate, serves legitimate public interests
- Recognised power imbalances: Special procedural protections for unrepresented consumers facing professional parties
The Bigger Picture: A System That Serves Power, Not Justice
This case is symptomatic of broader problems with our civil justice system:
It’s expensive: Only the wealthy can afford real access
It’s complex: Ordinary people cannot navigate it effectively
It’s biased: Professional parties have systematic advantages
It’s disproportionate: Small disputes can lead to devastating consequences
When Master Cook concluded that Waymouth’s conduct was “fanciful” and the matter shouldn’t proceed to trial, he was describing not just this case, but the entire notion that ordinary consumers can effectively challenge professional services through our legal system.
A Call for Reform
This judgment should prompt serious reflection about:
- Proportionality caps for consumer defamation disputes
- Enhanced protections for unrepresented defendants
- Stricter evidential requirements when cases proceed unopposed
- Alternative dispute resolution for consumer service complaints
- Legal aid availability for defamation defences
Conclusion: Justice Denied
We will never know whether Philip Waymouth received poor service for his £200. We will never know whether his complaints were justified. The legal system ensured we never could know, by making it financially impossible for him to defend his position.
What we do know is that a law firm successfully used the complexity and cost of our legal system to silence a consumer critic, with the courts’ unwitting assistance. The judgment reads less like reasoned legal analysis and more like an ex parte application where only one side was heard.
This isn’t justice – it’s the abuse of legal process to silence the powerless. Until we recognise that David sometimes has a point, even when he lacks Goliath’s resources to prove it in court, our legal system will continue to serve the powerful at the expense of ordinary citizens seeking basic consumer protection.
The real scandal isn’t that Waymouth called them a “scam solicitor” – it’s that our legal system made it financially impossible for him to explain why.
“This analysis examines the legal reasoning and systemic issues raised by a published judgment. It does not make findings about the underlying service quality or parties’ conduct beyond what appears in the court record.”
31st of July 2025
The Wright Judgment: When Judges Become Censors of “Effectiveness” – A Dangerous New Precedent for Conditional Free Speech
How Justice Mellor’s decision creates a terrifying framework where speech is permitted only if it fails to persuade
The High Court judgment in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright [2024] EWHC 1809 (Ch) represents one of the most dangerous developments in British free speech jurisprudence in recent memory. Whilst the case ostensibly concerns a fraudulent cryptocurrency claim, Justice Mellor’s approach to freedom of expression creates a chilling precedent that threatens the fundamental principle that controversial speech deserves protection precisely because it might be persuasive.
The Conditional Speech Framework
Justice Mellor crafted an extraordinary legal framework: Dr Wright may continue claiming to be Bitcoin’s creator Satoshi Nakamoto, but only so long as his claims remain ineffective. The judge explicitly stated:
“I suppose there is a slight risk that… certain people may start to change their minds or begin to believe that Dr Wright is Satoshi”
This wasn’t presented as a reason to protect speech, but as grounds for potential future restriction. The judge granted COPA “permission to apply for 2 years” for additional injunctive relief should Wright’s campaign gain momentum.
The message is unmistakable: speak freely, but don’t you dare be convincing.
Judicial Prediction of Public Response
Perhaps most troubling is Justice Mellor’s confidence in predicting public reaction to Wright’s future statements:
“Right-thinking people are likely to regard those assertions as hot air or empty rhetoric, even faintly ridiculous”
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the judge’s role. It is not for courts to determine what “right-thinking people” will believe. History is littered with ideas once dismissed as “fanciful” by authorities that later proved transformative – or with false claims that gained widespread acceptance despite judicial pronouncements.
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that Article 10 protects expression that “offend[s], shock[s] or disturb[s]” precisely because controversial speech requires protection. Justice Mellor’s approach turns this principle on its head, suggesting speech protection depends on judicial assessment of its likely reception.
The Effectiveness Test: A Constitutional Abomination
The judgment creates what we might call an “effectiveness test” for free speech protection. Under this framework:
- Ineffective speech = Protected (because harmless)
- Effective speech = Potentially restricted (because dangerous)
This inverts every principle of free expression law. Speech restrictions should be based on content (is it illegal?), not effectiveness (is it persuasive?). A Holocaust denier, flat-earther, or conspiracy theorist doesn’t lose Article 10 protection because their views gain followers.
The judge has essentially created a speech monitoring system, where Wright’s persuasiveness will be judicially supervised. If too many people start believing him, back to court he goes for enhanced restrictions.
Procedural Shortcuts Mask Constitutional Violations
Justice Mellor took remarkable procedural shortcuts that would normally trigger Article 6 (fair trial) concerns, apparently believing Wright’s fraud was so obvious that proper procedure was unnecessary. He:
- Set aside court orders from separate proceedings without those parties being present
- Made technical determinations about document forgery rather than deferring to expert evidence
- Created conditional speech restrictions based on future public reaction
These shortcuts may have been motivated by Wright’s apparent fraud, but constitutional rights exist precisely to protect unpopular defendants. When judges abandon proper procedure because they dislike a party, they undermine the system’s legitimacy.
The ECHR Trap: How “Anti-Fraud” Measures May Backfire
Ironically, Justice Mellor’s procedural violations may have handed Wright powerful grounds for a European Court of Human Rights challenge. ECHR jurisprudence consistently protects controversial speech, particularly when domestic courts create novel restrictions.
Wright could argue:
- Article 10: Speech was restricted based on potential effectiveness, not content
- Article 6: Procedural violations denied fair hearing
- Precedent value: Case creates dangerous template for conditional speech restrictions
If ECHR sided with Wright, it would create the ultimate irony: an apparent fraudster gaining European validation because a British judge cut constitutional corners to silence him.
Beyond Wright: The Systematic Threat
This judgment must be understood within the broader pattern of judicial erosion of free speech documented across British courts. Justice Mellor’s approach represents a sophisticated evolution in speech restriction:
Rather than blanket censorship (which triggers obvious Article 10 concerns), courts now create conditional frameworkswhere speech is theoretically permitted but practically constrained by judicial monitoring of its effectiveness.
This is censorship by bureaucracy – death by a thousand procedural cuts rather than a single decisive blow.
The Dangerous Precedent
Consider how Justice Mellor’s “effectiveness test” might apply beyond Wright:
- Political dissidents: Free to criticise the government, unless they start gaining supporters
- Consumer critics: Free to complain about services, unless their reviews start affecting business
- Whistleblowers: Free to raise concerns, unless people start taking them seriously
- Academic researchers: Free to publish controversial findings, unless they influence policy
The principle that speech protection diminishes with persuasiveness threatens the entire edifice of free expression.
What the Judge Should Have Done
A constitutionally sound approach would have:
- Applied consistent standards: Either Wright’s speech was harmful enough to restrict generally, or it wasn’t
- Avoided effectiveness-based tests: Focus on content illegality, not persuasive impact
- Followed proper procedure: Respect Article 6 rights even for apparent fraudsters
- Acknowledged limits: Recognised that judicial predictions about public reaction are inappropriate
Instead, Justice Mellor created a bespoke framework that looks reasonable on its face but establishes deeply dangerous precedents for conditional free speech.
The Constitutional Crisis
This judgment reveals a concerning judicial attitude: speech is fine as background noise, but dangerous when it actually communicates. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of why free expression matters.
Free speech isn’t protected because it’s harmless – it’s protected because it might be powerful. The whole point of Article 10 is that we cannot trust authorities (including judges) to determine which ideas deserve a hearing based on their likely effectiveness.
Conclusion: The Slope Gets Slippier
Justice Mellor may have believed he was crafting a narrow response to an obvious fraudster. Instead, he’s created a template for conditional censorship that could be applied far beyond cryptocurrency disputes.
When judges start monitoring speech for “effectiveness” rather than illegality, we’ve crossed a constitutional Rubicon. The Wright judgment represents not the protection of truth against falsehood, but the substitution of judicial wisdom for public debate.
The most chilling aspect isn’t that Wright might be silenced – it’s that future speakers might pre-emptively silence themselves, knowing that success brings scrutiny and effectiveness invites restriction.
In trying to prevent one man’s lies from gaining traction, Justice Mellor may have created a framework for suppressing any uncomfortable truth that proves too persuasive for judicial comfort.
That’s not justice – it’s the judicial management of public opinion. And it has no place in a free society.
The full judgment is available at: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/1809.html
This analysis examines the constitutional implications of published judicial reasoning and does not take a position on Dr Wright’s underlying claims about Bitcoin.
31st of July 2025
These blog posts deserve their own place here:
and the saddest and most terrifying one:
and many more similar ones on the blog post.
28th September 2025
Below part is copied and pasted from the Summary of Everything blog post. I will refine it soon.
HHJ James Tayler: The Case for Greater Judicial Transparency in Britain: Rhetoric vs Reality
*When judges champion open justice in the spotlight but practise secrecy in the shadows: My experience with judicial contradiction*
“Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done” – unless, it seems, you’re challenging employers with a generous legal cover insurance.
In medieval England, local residents were required to attend court sessions as observers. This was actually a civic duty and people who didn’t attend were punished, including losing legal rights and privileges or being declared to be in contempt of court. The contrast with today’s system is striking. Attending a court hearing is now quite challenging, with court officials creating numerous barriers including moving hearings to remote at the last minute or vice versa.
Some court hearings, especially employment tribunals, did not record hearings at all and have only recently started claiming some hearings are recorded – yet getting a transcript is close to impossible. The few people who have managed to get transcripts allege they don’t match what was actually said, with many blank spaces where transcribers claim inaudibility. In this era of technology, this refusal of proper record-keeping is both implausible and unacceptable.
My personal experience suggests judges do not want to be observed because they do not apply the law to the facts, and the online judgements are full of misrepresentations. For example, Employment Judge Quill blocked a journalist from attending a hearing after asking her some basic questions, presumably because he didn’t consider her important enough. He then went on to misrepresent facts around something very important in the judgement – he claimed there was not enough evidence to prosecute me when an employer reported me to the police for sending them a court-directed letter. This effectively portrayed me as possibly having acted criminally when in fact the employers were using the police and the courts to harass me. When no one is watching, a victim can be easily made to look as if they’ve done wrong. Obviously, a judge is a person who is entrusted, and no one would expect them to misrepresent facts in a published judgement. This is one way how British judges victimise employees in this country.In my case, because I tried to set the record straight, they also produced anonymity and restricted reporting orders to stop me correcting the numerous lies and omissions in the online judgements. The names of these employers have been published online for years which obviously makes these orders futile. The same judiciary refused to include my name in the orders so I would be harmed by the lies while being kept unable to correct them. Considering these orders have criminal and financial consequences, imagine how egregious this conduct is. These orders even mention the employers’ companies and accountants but not the names of the children the judiciary pretends these orders are produced for.
In an era where transparency is increasingly expected of public institutions, my experience with the British judiciary reveals troubling inconsistencies between published precedent and practical application. A stark example of this emerged in the contrast between His Honour Judge Tayler’s March 2022 landmark ruling in Guardian News & Media Limited v Rozanov [2022] EAT 12 and his May 2024 approach to my cases involving wage theft and employer misconduct.
When my four appeals came in front of him – two appeals for each set of employers which the Employment Appeal Tribunal listed together – they made it impossible for me to attend by repeatedly refusing my applications for a remote hearing. Two of these appeals were about anonymity/restrictive reporting orders and a correction certificate Employment Judge Brown produced to anonymise the name of an employer after the name had been included in a judgement for 18 months. All names on these orders have been published online as part of judgements by the tribunals for years and the correction certificate was not implemented. It would look to anyone with logic that these orders are unlawful and should be dissolved, but -after accepting the grounds of appeal on paper- EAT refused to look at the merits of the appeals by making it impossible for me to attend. HHJ Tayler produced some comments which are inherently troublesome for any logical person but especially for him because he was refusing to follow his own precedent in my appeals. Isn’t that some sort of discrimination?
The Current Landscape: Theory vs Practise
In Rozanov, HHJ Tayler forcefully upheld principles of open justice, declaring them of “overriding importance” and rejecting arguments about practical difficulties in providing documents to the media. The judgement established crucial precedents about transparency in employment proceedings. Yet by May 2024, when dealing with my cases involving wage theft and employer misconduct, these same principles appeared to be applied quite differently.
“The open justice principle is of overriding importance” – HHJ Tayler declared in Rozanov, March 2022. By May 2024, this principle seemed forgotten in my cases.
This contradiction is particularly evident in my cases where employers violated minimum wage laws. In one instance, an employer fraudulently reduced my wages below the minimum wage and then misrepresented herself to my former employers while gathering information to use against me. This employer made multiple police reports against me, which I found out later on. They also reported me to the police together with another set of employers who had also withheld minimum wage payments from me, demonstrating a pattern of wealthy employers exploiting workers and then using legal processes to intimidate us when challenged. All in all, these people reported me to the police dozens of times, and the latter set of employers managed to get me questioned by the police about petty matters – i.e., sending them a letter under the direction of a judge and how I knew they had five children. These are petty and ridiculous reasons to report someone to the police and a waste of police resources. You would think any judge could easily see that they were being used as harassment tools. The British judges misrepresented some of the reasons why they had reported me, on one occasion why the police contacted me, and omitted the proper explanations to create stigma about me.
Why are the judges so keen to misrepresent the facts and refuse to apply the law?
The Complex Web of Legal Representation
The landscape becomes more complex when examining the role of legal representatives who serve dual functions within the system. James Dawson, a part-time employment judge at the time and full time now, represented the first set of employers in my minimum wage claim which was heard in 2018. Meanwhile, barrister Paul Wilson, representing the employers in my subsequent harassment case (where the same employers had reported me to police dozens of times for bringing a wage claim), included an employer’s name in his skeleton argument when he listed all of my former employers these employers had misrepresented themselves to during the litigation in an attempt to find information to use against me.
At this stage, the employer Melanie Mareuge-Lejeune aka Griffiths was still arguing I may have lied about my employment history, and it was very important for her to get all of my former employers online in a judgement. Employment Judge Brown copied and pasted large chunks out of Wilson’s skeleton argument. This information entered the public domain through official channels, i.e., in an online judgement, demonstrating how transparency can occur through various pathways even as courts attempt to maintain restrictions. But employment judges and later Employment Appeal Tribunal refused to deal with these facts and repeated the employers’ argument of ‘who reads the judgement anyway?’ Therefore expecting me to lie about the facts in my own judgement or pretend these names are not there.
The Public Interest
The judiciary’s handling of my cases raises significant public interest concerns that go beyond individual injustices:
– The systematic exploitation of workers through minimum wage violations
– The use of legal processes and police reports to intimidate claimants
– The dual roles of legal professionals serving as both judges and representatives
– The apparent protection of wealthy employers with legal expense insurance
– The inconsistent application of open justice principles depending on media attention
When The Guardian requested documents, open justice prevailed. When I sought transparency as a vulnerable worker, the doors seemed to close.
The Rozanov Precedent vs Reality
The March 2022 Rozanov judgement established several key principles:
– The open justice principle is of “overriding importance”
– Technical difficulties cannot justify restricting access to documents
– The digital age makes document access easier
– Media access to documents after hearings is crucial for proper reporting
– Cost considerations should be minimal in the digital era
Yet by May 2024, in my cases involving serious employer misconduct and wage theft which have been proven, these principles appeared to be completely ignored. While I succeeded in proving parts of my cases, judgements reportedly contained significant misrepresentations that appeared designed to protect employers from the consequences of their actions while limiting the scope of my claims.
HHJ Tayler managed to say in decisions that are not published that having a link to my own judgements on my blog is ‘problematic’. He claimed that using the evidence to prove the inaccuracies – all of which harm me and protect the employers – is not acceptable. He also criticised me for having a screenshot of Employment Judge Sarah George which depicts her on the same page of the barrister chambers with Mr Paul Wilson.
It is against the principles of law, logic and case law to suggest I cannot even refer to my own online judgement because it contains the name of the employers while refusing to cancel the orders that pretend those orders are valid. He expects me to keep silent and pretends no one reads the judgements and no one will notice these names have been published online for years. It is an abuse of logic and law to suggest I cannot use or post the evidence that has been part of hearings and bundles numerous times in the last six years. The only explanation for all of his remarks is that he thinks I am unworthy of rule of law. It is clear that the names of these employers are online but he is trying to stop me correct the inaccuracies about me, which means I would have to accept judicial lies and give up on my most basic rights and dignity.
The Resistance to Transparency
The reluctance to establish a centralised database of judicial backgrounds is particularly troubling given that much of this information is already public, albeit scattered across various professional websites and legal directories. Many judges, particularly those serving part-time, simultaneously work as self-employed barristers and readily publish their credentials on chambers’ websites. This selective transparency – being open about credentials when seeking clients but less so when serving in public judicial roles – raises legitimate concerns about accountability.
This resistance to transparency becomes even more concerning when considered alongside the broader pattern of behaviour I’ve experienced. From the difficulty in obtaining hearing transcripts to the selective application of open justice principles, there appears to be a systematic resistance to genuine transparency and accountability.
System Reform Requirements
From my experience, the system needs reform in several key areas:
1. Creation of a centralised, searchable database of judicial officers’ backgrounds and potential conflicts
2. Consistent publication of judgements, regardless of the parties involved
3. Clear protocols for handling cases where judges have dual roles
4. Transparent processes for addressing allegations of judicial misconduct or bias
5. Equal application of open justice principles across all cases, not just those with media attention
6. Proper recording and accessible transcription of all hearings
7. Clear guidelines on the use of anonymity orders that prevent their abuse as tools of suppression
International Context
Many other jurisdictions have embraced greater transparency. The United States Federal Judiciary website provides detailed biographical information for federal judges. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom already publishes biographies of its justices, demonstrating that such transparency is both feasible and beneficial. This international context makes the resistance to transparency in employment tribunals even more difficult to justify.
Recent Developments: The Growing Pattern of Judicial Inconsistency
The contrast in HHJ Tayler’s judicial approach has become even more striking with his November 2024 ruling on accent discrimination, where he determined that commenting on or criticising someone’s foreign accent could constitute racial harassment. This judgement, which generated significant public discussion and thousands of critical comments across various platforms, represents yet another example of what appears to be situational justice.
The pattern becomes particularly concerning when viewed alongside his earlier high-profile ruling in the Maya Forstater case. His 2019 judgement in that case, which drew widespread criticism for ruling that gender-critical beliefs were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, was ultimately overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2021. The overturn of such a significant decision raises serious questions about his approach to complex and sensitive cases.
His recent accent discrimination ruling perfectly exemplifies this problematic pattern. As someone who speaks English as a second/third language, I understand intimately the complex dynamics at play. While pretending not to understand someone’s accent can indeed be used as a tool of discrimination and racism, there are also genuine situations where accents can create communication challenges. This nuanced reality makes it inappropriate and potentially harmful for a judge to make such sweeping pronouncements that could affect workplace interactions and communications.
The contrast with his handling of my cases is stark. While making broad, definitive pronouncements in high-profile cases, his approach to my proceedings was marked by imprecision and troubling misrepresentations. In one particularly egregious example, he claimed that my possession of a mobile phone would put me on equal footing with a full legal team – a statement that defies both logic and legal reality. This kind of reasoning demonstrates either a worrying disconnect from reality or a deliberate attempt to justify denying proper access to justice.
The pattern becomes clearer when examining his various rulings:
- In high-profile cases that attract media attention, he appears to take bold, headline-generating positions
- In Rozanov, he championed open justice principles for major media organisations
- In cases involving vulnerable workers challenging wealthy employers, he appears comfortable with information suppression and restricted evidence use
- When dealing with my evidence of judicial misrepresentation, he labels the use of public documents as “problematic”
- He makes illogical equivalences, such as comparing mobile phone access to professional legal representation
This inconsistency has not gone unnoticed by the public. The widespread criticism of his judgements on platforms ranging from news sites to Mumsnet suggests growing awareness of what appears to be performative justice – decisions that seem designed more for public consumption than consistent application of legal principles. The overturning of his Forstater decision particularly undermined confidence in his handling of significant cases.
The accent discrimination ruling, while addressing a genuine issue, cannot be viewed in isolation. When placed alongside his other decisions, including those in my case and the overturned Forstater judgement, it reveals a troubling pattern: justice that varies based on media attention and public scrutiny rather than consistent legal principles. His tendency to make sweeping pronouncements in high-profile cases while displaying concerning imprecision in others suggests a judiciary more concerned with headlines than careful application of the law.
This selective application of legal protection – expansive in headline-grabbing cases but restrictive in cases challenging systemic exploitation – undermines the very foundation of equal justice under law. The contrast between his precise, media-friendly pronouncements and his casual dismissal of serious concerns in less prominent cases raises fundamental questions about the consistency and reliability of his judicial approach.
Conclusion
The contrast between HHJ Tayler’s published Rozanov ruling and his May 2024 handling of my cases involving wage theft and employer misconduct reveals a troubling gap between judicial rhetoric and practise. When a major newspaper sought documents, the principles of open justice were robustly upheld. However, in my cases involving vulnerable workers facing powerful employers, these same principles were not applied.
The judiciary’s legitimacy rests not just on the quality of its decisions but on public confidence in its integrity and consistent application of principles. My experience suggests that this confidence is being undermined by inconsistent application of open justice principles, selective transparency, and what appears to be systematic protection of powerful interests at the expense of vulnerable workers.
The gap between judicial rhetoric and reality threatens public confidence in our courts. Open justice must apply equally – not just when newspapers are watching but when ordinary workers like me seek justice against powerful employers. The medieval practise of requiring public attendance at court hearings may seem archaic, but its underlying principle – that justice must be seen to be done – remains as vital as ever.
The question remains: Is open justice truly open, or does it depend on who’s watching? My experience suggests the latter, and this must change if we are to maintain any meaningful notion of justice in our employment tribunal system.
8th of December 2024:
Look at the page below and see how egregious HHJ Tayler’s handling of my claims has been:
The tribunal judges’ attempts to impose anonymity orders now, when these names have been public record for years through official court judgments, is like trying to close the barn door after the horses have long since bolted – an exercise in futility that serves only to highlight their desperation to suppress legitimate criticism. Here is a link to one of the articles about his accent ruling with four thousand negative comments:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/telling-someone-foreign-accent-t-150028074.html
***
The following article reinforces my personal experiences with judicial conduct across different jurisdictions, particularly regarding judges’ resistance to scrutiny and selective application of law. While this resistance is especially evident in family courts, I’ve observed similar behaviour in employment tribunals. For instance, during my employment tribunal hearing in April 2023, Judge Quill exhibited concerning conduct – first blocking a journalist from attending the hearing, and then proceeding to egregiously misrepresent the evidence in his written judgement, having ensured there would be no independent press coverage of the proceedings. He also downplayed the employer’s admitted victimisation and made inappropriate comments during the hearing.
A crucial distinction is that family court proceedings are recorded, allowing participants to obtain transcripts as evidence of what transpired. In contrast, employment tribunal hearings rarely have official recordings, creating a concerning lack of accountability. Employment tribunals can be particularly challenging environments, as participants often face aggressive behaviour from employers, their legal representatives, and sometimes the judges themselves.
The consequences can be severe. I’m aware of two cases where NHS medical specialists from ethnic minority backgrounds were imprisoned based primarily on judicial testimony. Given my experiences with judicial conduct, I have serious concerns about the reliability of the evidence in these cases. These experiences have fundamentally eroded my confidence in the judicial system.
19th December 2024: The Judge Tayler mentioned above is the most recent judge I’ve had to deal with. I began with him because he seems particularly keen to prevent me from telling this story, attempting to convince me that public judgements and public hearings should somehow remain secret. As I’ve stated numerous times, the judgements are riddled with falsehoods, and the tribunals have facilitated two sets of employers in exploiting me whilst enabling their continued harassment over the years. Their conduct has been so egregious that they’re now attempting to hide behind these unlawful arguments. Before delving further into each judge’s role in this saga, I must return to the beginning to explain how this messy story began. Below is a rough chronology that I’ll revisit in detail later, examining how each judge’s decisions contributed to this deplorable situation.
Regarding the permanent anonymity and restricted reporting orders for names that have already appeared in published judgments for years: my appeal ground has once again been accepted as valid and is awaiting a preliminary hearing.
It should be clear why there have been so many hearings and why both my time and public resources have been wasted—because a very simple issue is repeatedly being denied. One cannot claim that names the Tribunals themselves have published can somehow remain anonymised. If our judges cannot apply such basic logic, what chance is there of obtaining lawful decisions in important matters concerning our employment rights?
Moreover, the repeated inclusion of false statements in judgments to discredit me amounts to slander and leaves a stain on the justice system. I have a right to expect not only simple logic from the judiciary but also respect for the justice system itself. I have been denied both.
Leave a Reply