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.