No.

We advise where online harassment forms part of, or is closely connected with, a substantive defamation or reputation dispute.

For conduct directed at one person, a course of conduct will generally require behaviour on at least two occasions.

However, two incidents do not automatically establish harassment. The nature and context of the conduct must also satisfy the statutory requirements.

No.

Two publications may satisfy the minimum numerical requirement for a course of conduct, but this alone does not mean that harassment has occurred.

The complete course of conduct, its seriousness and surrounding circumstances must be assessed.

Potentially.

Repeated online publications can form part of harassment where the course of conduct satisfies the statutory legal test.

Potentially.

Civil courts can grant injunctions restraining harassment where the requirements of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are established.

Potentially.

A successful civil harassment claim can include damages for anxiety and financial loss resulting from the harassment.

The harassment provisions relating to harassment of a person concern individuals.

A business may nevertheless suffer connected reputational and financial harm from the same campaign, while directors, employees or other individuals associated with the business may be personally targeted.

The potential claims therefore need to be considered separately.

Sharing or threatening to share intimate photographs or films can amount to a criminal offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 where the relevant statutory requirements are met.

“Intimate image abuse” is generally a more accurate description because the conduct does not need to involve revenge or a former partner.

Potentially.

Where publication is threatened, urgent legal correspondence or, in an appropriate case, court relief may need to be considered.

The options depend on the circumstances, evidence and legal basis for intervention.

Certain creation and requesting of purported intimate images of adults without consent or a reasonable belief in consent are criminal offences under sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

AI-generated intimate material can also raise civil privacy, harassment, data protection and reputation issues.

Potentially.

Options can include platform reporting, legal correspondence, engagement with website operators and court remedies where the legal requirements are met.

Removal of one copy does not necessarily remove screenshots or reposts elsewhere.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced a statutory framework requiring regulated services to use proportionate systems and processes designed to address qualifying intimate-image content reports as soon as reasonably practicable and, subject to the statutory requirements, no later than 48 hours.

Whether the duty applies to a particular report depends on the legislation and regulatory framework.

Preserve the threat and any associated demand before deciding how to respond.

Depending on the circumstances, privacy, harassment, blackmail-related, pre-publication and reputation issues may all require consideration.

Police involvement may also be appropriate where criminal conduct is suspected.

Do not circulate intimate material unnecessarily.

Preserve the surrounding communications, URLs and account details and ask your solicitor how any image should be provided or stored securely.

If the person depicted is or may have been under 18, obtain specialist guidance before downloading, copying or forwarding the imagery.

No.

Nath Solicitors advises on civil privacy, reputation and related remedies. Criminal investigation and prosecution are matters for the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

No.

We advise where harassment or conduct associated with stalking forms part of, or is closely connected with, a substantive defamation or reputation dispute.

We do not provide a standalone harassment or stalking service.

Potentially.

Repeated publications can form part of a course of conduct amounting to harassment where the requirements of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 are satisfied.

More than one publication does not automatically establish harassment. The complete pattern and surrounding circumstances must be assessed.

Potentially.

Section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 allows the court to grant an injunction where the requirements of a civil harassment claim are established.

Whether an injunction is appropriate depends on the conduct, evidence and circumstances.

No.

Nath Solicitors does not provide criminal representation for blackmail investigations or prosecutions.

We may advise on connected civil defamation and reputation issues where threats to publish damaging allegations form part of the dispute.

No.

Blackmail has a specific statutory definition involving an unwarranted demand with menaces and the required intention concerning gain or loss.

Whether particular conduct satisfies that test is fact-specific.

Keep posts, messages, emails, URLs, account details, dates, voicemails or videos, threats and demands, evidence of third-party contact and records of reputational or financial consequences.

Preserve originals as well as screenshots where possible.

Potentially.

We act for both claimants and respondents in civil reputation disputes. The publications, alleged course of conduct, legal basis of the claim and possible defences would need to be assessed.

Preserve the enquiry or request for comment and gather documents that address the allegations.

Where the proposed publication could cause serious harm, consider taking legal advice before responding because your response may itself be quoted or published.

Potentially, but the threshold for restraining publication before trial is high.

Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requires courts to give particular weight to freedom of expression, and section 12(3) requires the applicant to be likely to establish that publication should not be allowed.

The availability of an injunction depends on the facts and legal basis of the case.

Potentially.

Legal correspondence may sometimes lead to allegations being withdrawn or amended before publication. Whether court action is realistic will depend on the seriousness of the threat, the available evidence, any potential defence and the urgency of the situation.

Preserve the publication, URL, date, account details, context and available evidence of circulation or harm before seeking removal or contacting the publisher.

Our evidence-preservation guide explains the practical steps in more detail.

Potentially.

Removal may be pursued through the publisher, platform or website operator, through legal correspondence or settlement, or through court remedies where there is a proper legal basis.

Removal cannot be guaranteed and may not address copies or republications elsewhere.

Defamation may not be the only legal issue.

Depending on the circumstances, threatened disclosure of private or confidential information may raise issues concerning misuse of private information, breach of confidence, harassment or other legal rights.

Each potential claim has different legal requirements.

Potentially.

A business may be able to challenge false proposed allegations through evidence and legal correspondence before publication.

However, not every damaging statement can lawfully be prevented, and the assessment should take account of potential defences, freedom of expression and, where relevant, employment or whistleblowing protections.

Yes.

Defamation claims in England and Wales are generally subject to a one-year limitation period from the date the cause of action accrued.

Limitation can become fact-specific, so advice should be obtained promptly on the relevant publication dates.

Potentially.

The English court must have jurisdiction. Where section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 applies, the court must also be satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of was published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring the action.

No.

The fact that online material can be accessed in England does not automatically make England and Wales the correct forum.

The court may need to consider the extent of publication, the claimant's reputation and harm in this jurisdiction, the location of the defendant and the connection with other countries.

Not automatically.

Jurisdiction, applicable law, publication and serious harm are separate issues and require assessment on the particular facts.

The location of the website or server alone does not necessarily determine where a claim should be brought.

Potentially.

Options may include contacting the publisher, using platform or website processes, seeking a negotiated removal or undertaking, or pursuing court remedies where there is a proper legal basis.

Any remedy may have territorial limits, and removal in one country does not necessarily mean that the material will disappear worldwide.

Potentially.

We can assess the evidence already available, the likely jurisdiction, realistic options for identifying the publisher and whether legal action is proportionate.

The appropriate steps depend on the platform, publisher, countries involved and nature of the publication.

Defamation claims in England and Wales are generally subject to a one-year limitation period.

Cross-border cases may also involve different limitation rules in other jurisdictions. Advice should therefore be obtained promptly on the relevant publication dates and potential forums.

Potentially.

The available enforcement route depends on the country in which recognition or enforcement is required, the nature of the judgment and any applicable international or domestic enforcement regime.

The location of the defendant and relevant assets should ideally be considered before or during the underlying proceedings rather than only after judgment has been obtained.

Save the complete publication, URL, account details, date and time, surrounding context, visible engagement information and any evidence showing reputational or financial consequences.

Where possible, keep original images, audio, video and unedited screenshots.

Screenshots are useful, but they may not provide the complete evidence needed.

Where possible, also preserve the direct URL, surrounding context, account information, publication dates, engagement data and original media.

The evidence required will depend on the circumstances.

Preserve the evidence first.

Contact may result in material being deleted, altered or circulated more widely. Whether to approach the publisher directly will depend on the circumstances and the wider legal and reputational strategy.

Potentially.

Preserve the relevant publication and account details first. Whether to report, block or contact the publisher will depend on the nature of the publication and the strategy being considered.

Other evidence may remain, including screenshots, notifications, emails, messages, reposts, quotations or archived webpages.

Other recipients may also have retained copies.

A solicitor can assess what evidence remains available and whether further steps are appropriate.

Defamation claims in England and Wales are generally subject to a one-year limitation period.

How that period applies can raise legal issues, particularly where there have been different publications or republications, so advice should be obtained on the relevant dates.

Not necessarily.

Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 contains a single publication rule which can apply where the same publisher later publishes the same or substantially the same statement.

Whether a later publication creates a separate cause of action can depend on the circumstances, so limitation should be assessed on the particular facts.

Yes, where the legal requirements are satisfied.

A body trading for profit must show that the publication caused, or is likely to cause, serious financial loss for the serious-harm requirement under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 to be met.

The evidence will depend on the business and publication.

It may include lost sales or enquiries, cancelled contracts or bookings, customer communications, loss of commercial opportunities, reduced revenue or other evidence showing a connection between the publication and actual or likely financial harm.

Potentially.

The words used, their meaning, whether they are fact or opinion, the available evidence, the audience and the commercial impact all need to be assessed.

A genuine negative opinion does not automatically become defamatory because a business disagrees with it.

Potentially.

Defamation, malicious falsehood or another commercial cause of action may be relevant depending on what was published, why it was published and the available evidence.

Potentially.

Options may include platform complaints, legal correspondence, negotiation or court action, depending on the content, publisher and legal basis for intervention.

Removal cannot be guaranteed and the appropriate strategy depends on the circumstances.

Potentially, but complaints to regulators and professional bodies can raise additional legal issues and possible defences.

The words used, recipient, context, underlying evidence and circumstances of the complaint should be assessed before deciding whether legal action is justified.

Defamation claims are generally subject to a one-year limitation period.

Limitation can be fact-specific, particularly where there are questions about different publications or republication, so advice should be obtained on the relevant dates.

Preserve the original publication and records showing its circulation and commercial consequences.

This may include screenshots, URLs, account details, customer communications, lost enquiries, cancelled contracts, reduced bookings, supplier concerns or other evidence of financial impact.

Potentially.

Jurisdiction depends on the contract, the parties, the nature of the claim, the connection with England and Wales and the applicable procedural rules.

A solicitor can assess whether England and Wales is an available and appropriate forum.

No.

Governing law determines which law applies to the dispute. Jurisdiction concerns which court or tribunal has authority to determine it.

A contract can, for example, be governed by English law without every dispute necessarily being heard by an English court.

Review the governing law, jurisdiction and dispute-resolution provisions in the relevant contracts.

You should also identify where the opposing parties and assets are located and establish whether proceedings have already been started or threatened in another country.

These issues can materially affect strategy.

Parallel or competing proceedings can create complex jurisdictional and procedural issues.

The appropriate response may involve challenging jurisdiction, coordinating proceedings across jurisdictions or considering other court or arbitral remedies, depending on the circumstances.

Early advice can be important because procedural deadlines may apply.

Potentially.

The available route depends on the country, judgment and any applicable international convention or domestic enforcement regime.

Enforcement prospects should ideally be assessed before or during the underlying claim rather than after judgment has been obtained.

Yes.

Nath Solicitors has experience in substantial international arbitration proceedings, including matters conducted under the LCIA Rules.

Not necessarily.

Local lawyers may be required where foreign law advice, overseas court proceedings or local enforcement action is needed.

Nath Solicitors can coordinate with overseas counsel and remain the central point of contact where appropriate.

Rights may arise under the Companies Act 2006, the company's articles, shareholder agreements and other arrangements.

Where the statutory requirements are met, section 994 may allow a shareholder to seek relief where the company's affairs have been conducted in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

Not automatically.

A sale may arise through provisions in the company's articles or shareholder agreement, negotiation between the parties or, in appropriate circumstances, a court order.

The available route depends on the facts, the company documents and the legal basis of the dispute.

An unfair prejudice petition is a claim under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 where a member alleges that the company's affairs have been conducted in a way that unfairly prejudices members' interests.

Where a petition succeeds, the court has wide powers to grant an appropriate remedy.

A derivative claim is brought by a shareholder in respect of a cause of action belonging to the company and seeks relief on the company's behalf.

Under section 260 of the Companies Act 2006, such claims can arise from certain acts or omissions involving negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust by a director.

Removal from office as a director does not automatically end a person's rights as a shareholder. The roles of director and shareholder are legally distinct, although the company's articles, shareholder agreement and surrounding circumstances may affect the position.

In a closely held or quasi-partnership company, exclusion from management may also become relevant when assessing whether conduct is unfairly prejudicial.

Yes.

Negotiation, mediation, an agreed buyout or another form of business separation can resolve many shareholder disputes without a final court hearing.

Court action may still be necessary where agreement cannot adequately protect a party's rights or urgent relief is required.

The company may face deadlock, particularly where neither shareholder can pass key resolutions or make important decisions without the other.

Possible solutions include negotiation, mediation, a buyout, business separation or litigation, depending on the company's structure, governing documents and the commercial objectives of the parties.

Commercial litigation covers legal disputes arising from business contracts, transactions, ownership, investments and other commercial relationships.

Early advice can be valuable where an important contract has been breached, a business relationship is deteriorating, assets may be at risk, proceedings have been threatened or urgent action may become necessary.

Early assessment can help preserve evidence, clarify the available options and avoid steps that may weaken the business's position.

Yes. Many commercial disputes are resolved through negotiation, mediation or another dispute resolution process without a final court trial.

The best route depends on the legal position, the commercial objective and the willingness of the parties to negotiate.

Yes. Mediation can take place before or during proceedings and may enable parties to reach a confidential commercial settlement without a trial.

Whether mediation is appropriate depends on the dispute, the parties' objectives and the prospects of reaching an acceptable agreement.

Substantial and complex commercial cases may be heard in specialist courts and lists within the High Court's Business and Property Division. The appropriate court or list depends on the nature and value of the dispute and the legal issues involved.

Potentially. Injunctions may be available where urgent court intervention is legally justified and supported by the evidence.

Whether an injunction is appropriate depends on the legal test, the nature of the threatened harm and the particular circumstances.

Yes. Businesses are the primary focus of our commercial litigation practice, but we also act for directors, shareholders, investors, entrepreneurs and other individuals involved in substantial disputes arising from commercial or business interests.

Defamation arises when a statement is made or published about you to another person and that statement causes you serious harm and is untrue.

You can sue someone if a false statement is made and you can prove that you have been caused serious harm through that statement.

You can sue for defamation if a false statement has been made about you by someone and that statement is made to a third person; ie it must not be made to you. To start the process you need to send a letter to the other party demanding they stop. The letter must set out your case and why what is said is false and it must  be detailed and very well written to give you the best chance of stopping the defamation. It must also be written in the correct format required by law. This is where Nath solicitors excel; to get the best results you need to start with the best letter.

If words are said to you directly, you will not have a claim for defamation. For a defamation claim, the words must have been delivered to another person, other than yourself.

If someone is making false allegations you should act quickly to stop them. This is done by asking Nath solicitors to write to the other person demanding they stop against the threat of litigation if they do not. The letter must be well written and detailed and done in the correct legal manner. Nath solicitors achieve excellent results through their meticulous work.

Litigation is needed when negotiation, mediation, or arbitration fails, or when urgent court orders such as injunctions are required. Acting quickly can protect your assets, rights, or reputation.

If someone is spreading lies about you contact Nath solicitors; we can help you to stop the lies and we can do so quickly. We need to write to the other person and demand they stop or face legal action. We act quickly to ensure you get the best result.

To bring a legal case for defamation you need to start by sending a letter before claim to the other parties setting out in detail what your case is about you then have to wait for them to respond before you can file a case at the High Court for defamation. You have to complete the legal forms and documents in the correct legal manner and you have to pay the Court fees. Defamation litigation is highly specialised, and it is advisable to seek help on your case before you file a case. Defamation is technical and complex; if you lose you could end up having to pay the other sides costs. Get help first and speak to Nath solicitors.

An individual must make a claim for defamation within one year from the date the defamatory statement was made. If you are unsure about whether you can make a claim, contact our specialist defamation solicitors for advice.

Yes you can sue for defamation on Facebook and at Nath solicitors we have acted successfully for clients where vidoes were made and posted on Facebook. You can also sue for statements on TikTok/Instagram or any other platform.

Whilst you can ask the social media platforms to remove the content, our experience shows that in most cases, the social media platforms do not remove content or get involved in a dispute situation. In these circumstances, you need to get professional help.

Yes online statements on Google/Facebook/TikTok/Instagram and all other types of social media posts, blogs, and comments, can be considered defamatory if they meet the criteria for defamation (ie they are false and cause serious harm to your reputation).

Based upon the cases we have seen and advised on, the police do not get involved in defamatory matters; this is treated as a civil, rather than a criminal matter in the majority of cases.

We specialise in complex, high-value disputes: shareholder conflicts, cross-border litigation, banking and financial disputes, energy and mining matters, international arbitration, and defamation/online reputation cases.

Timelines vary. Simple disputes may finish in months, but complex, high-value cases can take 12–24 months or longer. We work to manage proceedings efficiently and minimise delay.

The cost of litigation depends on multiple varying factors. These include the type of case (commercial, shareholder, defamation, or cross-border), the complexity of the legal issues, and the evidence required.

Straightforward cases with limited documents and legal arguments may be resolved at a relatively modest cost. In contrast, complex disputes with multiple witnesses, extensive disclosure, or expert evidence will inevitably be more expensive.

At Nath Solicitors, we provide clients with clear cost estimates at the outset. We break down projected costs for each stage and try and tell clients at the outset so that they can prepare their budget.

• Pre-action stage (Letter Before Claim, without prejudice negotiations)
• Issuing proceedings
• Disclosure of documents
• Witness statements
• Interim hearings
• Trial preparation
• Trial

This stage-by-stage approach gives clients clarity and control. Costs are reviewed and updated regularly, so there are no hidden surprises.

The conduct of the other party also affects costs. A cooperative opponent may reduce expense through early settlement, while a hostile or obstructive party may increase costs with unnecessary applications. In many cases, mediation or negotiation can significantly reduce overall expenditure.

It is also important to consider the “loser pays” rule in England and Wales. Generally, the losing party is ordered to pay a proportion of the winner’s costs (often 60–80%). While this can help offset your outlay, recovery is never 100%.

Ultimately, litigation costs are best managed through transparency, planning, and strategy. WE can help you do this.

Yes. Many disputes settle before trial, saving clients significant time and costs. Our lawyers are skilled negotiators who secure favourable settlements whenever possible.

Nath Solicitors regularly handles international disputes and works with trusted foreign counsel. We assess jurisdiction, enforceability, and litigation strategy to give clients the strongest possible position.

Yes, in England and Wales you can start a case in court without a solicitor. In simple matters, such as small claims under £10,000, the court process is designed to be accessible. Forms are straightforward, hearings are informal, and legal costs are limited.

However, more complex disputes are very different. Cases involving shareholder conflicts, defamation, professional negligence, or commercial contracts must comply strictly with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). They require detailed assessment of merits and if the case is strong then potential legal action including pleadings, careful preparation of evidence, and often expert evidence. Missing a procedural step or deadline can lead to a claim being struck out or significant costs being awarded against you.

Many people begin proceedings themselves and realise the consequences when it is too late. Disclosure of documents, interim applications, or costs hearings can quickly become highly technical. At Nath Solicitors, we are seeing an increase in cases being conducted by litigants in person in often complex cases in the High Court; the usual scenario is that they have issued legal action, often without awareness of the risks, and ended up disadvantaged by procedural mistakes or a bad case which should never have started. By that stage, legal and financial damage can already be substantial. In one case, a litigant had a costs order made against her in defamation that was more than £50,000.00. That amount for an individual put that person’s home at risk.

The reality is that litigation is not just about filing forms. It is about expertise and strategy gained over decades. While you can technically represent yourself, doing so in a high-value or reputation-critical dispute carries real risks.

With over 30 years of litigation experience, Nath Solicitors ensures that claims are properly framed, costs are controlled, and the strongest possible case is advanced from the outset.

The first step in resolving any dispute is a merits assessment of the case. At Nath Solicitors, we review your documents, facts, and evidence to give you the strongest strategy from the outset.

1. Letter Before Claim: This formal letter sets out your case under the Civil Procedure Rules. It shows you are serious, defines the issues, and often prompts an early response.
2. Without Prejudice Correspondence: Confidential negotiations allow both sides to discuss settlement options freely without weakening their case in court.
3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): This can be by way of mediation, arbitration, or expert determination are often faster and more cost-effective than trial. Mediation in particular can preserve business or shareholder relationships.
4. Litigation: If settlement fails, litigation may be necessary. With strong preparation, we protect your rights, assets, or reputation.

Most disputes can be resolved without the need for legal action.   We combine robust preparation with skilled negotiation, to maximise your chances of a cost-effective and favourable outcome.

The time it takes to resolve a dispute depends on the complexity of the issues, the remedies sought, and the approach of the parties. Some disputes can be resolved quickly through negotiation or mediation, but once a case enters the courts of England and Wales, the average timeframe is 12 to 18 months from issue of proceedings to trial.

This is because litigation follows a structured process under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Typical and has different stages including those before legal action starts and those after.  

In practice, delays can occur. Factors include court timetabling pressures, contested interim applications, or challenges to expert evidence. In high-value commercial disputes, it is not unusual for a trial to be listed more than a year after proceedings begin.

However, many disputes settle earlier. Mediation, arbitration, or without prejudice negotiation can resolve matters within months, saving both time and cost. As experienced litigators, we prepare every case as if it will go to trial, while constantly evaluating opportunities for earlier settlement.

This balanced approach ensures clients are protected, timelines are managed, and outcomes are achieved efficiently.

Once litigation has begun in the courts of England and Wales, stopping the case mid-way is not as simple as walking away. The process is governed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), and the key point is that if you discontinue, you will usually be ordered to pay the other side’s legal costs up to that stage, in addition to your own. This is why discontinuance is always a serious financial decision.

There are three main routes if you wish to end your case part-way through:

1. Discontinuance: you file a formal Notice of Discontinuance. Unless the court orders otherwise, you remain liable for the other party’s costs.
2. Settlement: you reach an agreement with your opponent, often formalised in a Tomlin Order. This allows you to control how costs are dealt with and ensures the dispute is concluded on agreed terms.
3. Court order: in some situations, especially once trial preparations are advanced, the court’s permission is required to discontinue. The judge will usually still order you to pay the opponent’s costs.

Stopping a case also has strategic consequences. Opponents may view withdrawal as a sign of weakness, and in some cases, you may not be able to bring the same claim again. It is therefore essential to consider alternatives such as mediation or without prejudice negotiations before abandoning proceedings.

In many cases arbitration is cheaper than litigation, but it is important to be clear that costs can still be considerable. For example, if you are carrying out the process in conjunction with an arbitral institution such as the LCIA you will have to meet its administrative costs. You will also be expected to pay the arbitrator’s fee. However, the cooperative nature of arbitration means that less time is often taken up arguing over procedural and ancillary issues than may be the case in full blown court proceedings. This can reduce costs significantly.

Given the consensual and flexible nature of the arbitration process rules about paying the costs of the other party once an award or decision has been made tend not to be applied in a hard and fast way and are always subject to agreement between the parties. This is clear from The Arbitration Act, 1996 which applies to arbitrations held in England and Wales. It states

• The tribunal may make an award allocating the costs of the arbitration as between the parties, subject to any agreement of the parties.
• Unless the parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should follow the event (meaning that the successful party is entitled to an order to recover costs from the unsuccessful side) except where it appears to the tribunal that in the circumstances this is not appropriate in relation to the whole or part of the costs.

Arbitration is a consensual process so it’s not possible to force another party to engage in arbitration. It’s common however for commercial contracts to contain a binding arbitration clause but you must agree this clause at the time you draft and sign the original contract. Usually, the clause should cover matters such as what disputes must be referred to arbitration, where the arbitration is to be held and which arbitral institution’s rules (if any) are to be followed.

In the absence of an arbitration clause, it is still open to the parties – when a dispute arises – to agree to arbitrate a dispute instead of going to court.

It’s crucial to remember that commercial arbitration – at the LCIA or anywhere else – is a voluntary procedure. That’s to say you and the party you are in dispute with must both agree to the arbitration. Usually, a commercial contract will specify whether or not disputes should be referred to arbitration instead of following the more traditional court route. It’s important therefore when entering contracts to get specialist legal advice on terms and to consider whether or not arbitration might be the best way to resolve any future disputes under the contract.

It varies, but litigation can take 12–18 months. Settlement or mediation may resolve matters sooner.

Not always. Many disputes are resolved through negotiation, arbitration, or expert determination.

Many are resolved through negotiation or mediation, saving time and costs.

You may have legal remedies under unfair prejudice provisions to protect your rights and investments.

Partnerships are then governed by default legal rules, but disputes can still be resolved with legal guidance

This depends on the terms of the partnership agreement and the grounds for removal.

Yes. Depending on the circumstances of the case you may need to write to the person first and let them know about your trademark and then you can seek injunctions, damages, or orders for delivery up of infringing goods.

We take a practical and strategic approach when defending directors in unfair prejudice cases. They focus on resolving disputes as early as possible, aiming to protect their clients’ reputations. This often involves negotiation, mediation, or making buy-out offers to settle matters quickly and privately, instead of going to court. Their past cases show that early solutions and flexible thinking often lead to successful, amicable outcomes that protect the company’s interests.

If court action becomes necessary, we use strong procedural defences. They challenge petitions that are unclear, not relevant, or are more suitable as derivative claims. They may ask the court to strike out weak parts of a case or argue that the complaints are not really about how the company is run. These technical defences can help reduce or eliminate claims early on.

When it comes to discussing remedies, such as share buyouts, we work to safeguard shareholder interests. They argue for factors like discounts  ( where relevant)  using earlier valuation dates, and making adjustments for company debts or the claimant’s misconduct. This approach helps keep the buyout fair and minimizes costs.

We recommend seeking legal advice early to understand your rights as a shareholder. They advise reviewing shareholder agreements and company documents to spot any breaches. Before starting legal action, they encourage exploring mediation or other ways to resolve disputes to save time, costs, and relationships. Gathering all relevant evidence and considering the business impact of the dispute are important steps. Clients should carefully assess the risks, costs, and possible results of litigation. Nath Solicitors focus on creating a clear, tailored strategy to achieve the best solution whether that means an injunction, financial compensation, or a buyout. This practical approach helps resolve shareholder disputes effectively and protects business interest.

Mediation plays a central role in our strategy for resolving shareholder disputes.

We emphasizes mediation  for its efficiency and effectiveness in resolving complex contractual and investment disputes, including shareholder matters. Their expertise in mediation  rules and procedures enables them to manage complex aspects like document disclosure, limitation periods, and cost orders with precision, helping clients avoid costly and protracted court litigation.

Their approach is personalized and commercially focused, aiming to resolve disputes quickly and protect clients’ business interests.  Mediation  thus serves as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism for us in shareholder disputes, ensuring confidentiality, speed, and expert handling of complex issues.

For breaches of non-compete agreements, we ensure that restrictive clauses are fair in scope and duration to make them enforceable in court. When an ex-employee joins a competitor and uses confidential information, it strengthens the case. We gather evidence of competitive actions and misuse of confidential data to support claims for injunctions to stop further breaches, as well as for damages to cover losses caused by the violation.

We stand out for using advanced techniques in shareholder disputes involving intellectual property theft. Their strategy begins early working with the client to finds deleted emails or documents, by examining devices used by shareholders or directors. This helps them uncover and prove cases of IP misappropriation.

What sets us apart is our proactive use of tools and techniques  from the outset of an investigation ensuring that clear, credible evidence supports their legal arguments. This powerful combination of legal expertise and technical investigation helps clients resolve complex IP disputes more efficiently and effectively.

We handle enforcement and defence of restrictive covenants in company exits with a focus on protecting business interests while staying practical. They advise drafting clear, reasonable, and enforceable restrictions in employment or service contracts to protect intellectual property and confidential information. When issues arise, we aim to engage early with the departing employee or founder to resolve disputes amicably, often through negotiation or alternative dispute resolution to avoid costly court battles. If litigation is needed, they carefully review the scope and fairness of the restrictions to ensure they are enforceable and provide strong legal support throughout the process.

At Nath Solicitors, we specialise in removing damaging online content — including criminal convictions. Many people assume that once something is published on Google, especially a conviction that is never spent, it cannot be removed. That is not the case. We use a forensic, dual-track strategy: pressing Google directly with data protection arguments while preparing litigation if necessary. Our approach is precise, fast, and legally robust — achieving results in cases where others assume removal is impossible.

Yes, in certain circumstances. While spent convictions are easier to remove under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, even an unspent conviction may be delisted if the search results are inaccurate, excessive, or disproportionate. At Nath Solicitors, we first assess your case and then apply a dual-track strategy: pressing Google with formal data protection notices (focusing on GDPR’s accuracy and relevance principles) while preparing litigation if necessary. We also argue the balance between privacy, rehabilitation, and public interest.

If Google rejects your request, that is not the end of the matter. We prepare a formal legal notice combining both defamation and data protection arguments. Where appropriate, we issue proceedings in the High Court against Google Ireland Ltd. Our dual-claim strategy places maximum pressure on Google, ensuring your right to privacy and rehabilitation is taken seriously.

Accuracy alone is not the only test. Even if a conviction is factually correct, it can still be delisted if its continued availability causes disproportionate harm to your professional or personal life and serves no genuine public interest. We present evidence of the impact on employment, reputation, and rehabilitation to show that the balance falls in favour of removal.

Yes. Courts and Google apply a balancing test between public interest and your right to privacy. A conviction for a minor offence with no ongoing relevance is more likely to be delisted than a conviction for a serious or high-profile crime. That said, we have successfully argued for removal even in challenging cases by showing how the content is inaccurate, outdated, or disproportionate.