Brett Wilson

The firm: A specialist media law and litigation firm. The firm acts predominantly for high profile individuals, UHNWIs and corporates, but also represents numerous charities, trade bodies, local authorities and other public bodies.  Clients include the Law Society, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, Unite the Union, The Jewish Chronicle, and Good Law Project.

Principal areas of work: The firm boasts a renowned media law and communications department which specialises in defamation, privacy, harassment and data protection.  This work is predominantly, but not exclusively, claimant-focused. The firm is also well-known for its privately-funded criminal defence work (including serious fraud), regulatory/disciplinary work, asset forfeiture, litigation (with a focus on civil fraud), commercial and corporate dispute work as well as a growing family law practice.

Defamation:The firm acted in two of the most important cases involving online publications: The Law Society & Ors v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 3185 (QB) (successful action on behalf of the legal profession to close down the infamous website Solicitors from Hell), Tamiz v Google Inc [2013] EWCA Civ 68 (established that Google Inc could be liable as a publisher at common law in relation to material posted on its Blogger platform).  Recent reported claimant libel successes include Morgan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 1525 (QB) (a barrister accused of negligent failings in the prosecution of cricketer Ben Stokes), Blackledge v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1994 (an anonymous blog set up to defame a senior academic) and Hopkinson v British Mensa Limited (2021).  Recent reported defendant successes include Riley & Anor v Heybroek [2020] EWHC 1259 (QB) (a claim brought by two celebrities concerning a dispute on Twitter), Wright v Ver [2020] EWCA Civ 672 (a claim brought by a man claiming to have invented Bitcoin) and Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1688 (QB) (a claim brought against a publisher and literary agency by a former associate).

Privacy: The firm acts for individuals seeking to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of confidential/private information or seeking redress following infringements. These cases are typically brought against the press and individuals. The firm is known for its pioneering work tackling ‘revenge porn’.  Recent reported successes include JQL v NTP [2020] EWHC 1349 (QB) (a claim arising from the publication of private information on Facebook) and GUH v KYT [2021] EWHC 1854 (QB) (a privacy injunction against a sex worker).

Harassment: Reported examples of recent successes include Smith v Backhouse [2023] EWCA Civ 874 (in which the Court of Appeal offered important guidance on the use of undertakings to the court), Dew v Mills-Nanyn [2022] EWHC 1925 (QB) (where the defendant embarked on a long-running campaign of harassment against an individual they met on Tinder) and Suttle v Walker [2019] EWHC 396 (QB) (a Facebook hate campaign).  Further back, QRS v Beach [2014] EWHC 3319 (QB) set a roadmap for representative proceedings brought on behalf of employees against disgruntled former clients pursuing vendettas via the internet.  Similar proceedings have successfully brought on behalf of a local authority.

Data protection: The firm has long been instructed in respect of data protection issues as a complementary practice to its defamation and privacy work. Over recent years the firm has acted for a large number of individuals, including many high-profile figures/business leaders, seeking to enforce their data protection rights against search engines such as Google LLC (‘the right to be forgotten’/’right to erasure’). The firm has been at the forefront of the development of the law in this area and its partners are regularly asked to provide expert comment to the media and legal press.

Committal: The firm brings and defends High Court committal proceedings. Recent reported examples include Galloway v Ali-Khan [2018] EWHC 780 (QB) (failure by the respondent to comply with undertakings to the court), as well as QRS and Dew above.

Regulatory/disciplinary: The firm advises and represents professionals in investigations brought by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, General Medical Council and General Dental Council. It also represents companies and individuals in investigations conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority, Trading Standards and other regulatory bodies.  The firm acted for the successful appellant in the landmark case of Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231 (Admin), in which the Court provided guidance on the regulation of professionals’ private lives.

Criminal defence: The firms’ expertise in this area is reflected in the broad nature of its private practice. Typical clients are professionals or high-profile individuals facing prosecution for the first (and probably only) time in their lives, for whom the prospect of a criminal record and the ensuing stigma can sometimes be more terrifying than any potential sentence. The firm has particular expertise in dealing with highly sensitive allegations of a sexual nature.  Recent successes include Mohammed v R. [2021] EWCA Crim 766, the 750th referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

NCA and asset forfeiture: The firm deals with claims brought by the NCA under both parts 5 and 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (ie property freezing orders and civil recovery orders in the High Court). It has been involved in many of the most high-profile cases in this field (see, for example, Sanam v National Crime Agency [2015] WLR 2015, National Crime Agency v Saleh [2018] EWHC 1012).

Serious fraud (criminal): The firm is regularly instructed in connection with allegations of serious fraud including bribery and corruption. Recent cases include the largest ever crypto-currency fraud and a corporate defendant being prosecuted by the SFO for corruption extra-territorially.

Civil fraud: The firm acts for both claimants and defendants. It has been involved in various civil fraud claims before the Chancery Division for misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, dishonest assistance, knowing receipt, as well as claims under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. High profile examples include a claim for restitution for funds invested in an unauthorised collective investment scheme (O’Neil v Gale [2013] EWCA Civ 1554). The firm regularly deals with cases involving freezing injunctions and, in the criminal context, restraint orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Corporate and commercial litigation: The firm acts in corporate disputes, both business to business and intra business (eg breaches of shareholder agreements and partnership disputes), as well as insolvency-related matters.