BREAKING: Pool fan told to pay £18k damages in solicitor slur

Graham Woodward, an employee of the former Premier League club, was the subject of ‘serious libel’ that would not have been construed as ‘mere tongue in cheek saloon bar banter’, Mr Justice King, sitting in the High Court at Manchester Civil Justice Centre, ruled.

The ruling in Woodward v Grice followed a summary judgment against defendant Andrew Grice in December 2015.

The dispute centred on a post made on the ‘Fansonline’ web forum that referred to Mr Woodward as ‘the well known struck off solicitor Graham Woodward’, The Law Society Gazette has reported.

Mr Woodward complained about the post as well as another ‘word for word’ posting on another fans’ message board called ‘backhenrystreet’.

However, Mr Grice denied that he published the second post.

The post in which the claim appeared alluded to separate action involving fans of the club who have been in dispute with Blackpool’s owners, Karl and Owen Oyston.

Today, Mr Grice - who was awarded £20,000 in damages from Karl Oyston’s son Sam over defamatory tweets in May 2015 linked to this hearing - said he regretted the comments which he said were made in anger.

Mr Grice said: “I have suffered stress, a significant reduction in my salary, a relationship break up and countless sleepless nights plus a Karl Oyston stadium ban, they should have to answer for that.

On top of all this I now concede that bankruptcy is the only thing left for me.

“The judgement issued was disappointing as it seems to overlook how hurt I was and why I made the comment complained of in the first place.

“I made the fateful mistake in making the three word comment about Graham Woodward that I regret.”

In judgment, King said he was reasonably satisfied that the ‘backhenrystreet’ publication was a repetition of the original publication and that ‘it is the nature of defamatory statements that they are often repeated and passed on when they first appear on an internet website’.

He added: “Accordingly, my assessment of damages for the “Fansonline” publication will reflect my assessment of the totality of the injury suffered by the claimant to his reputation and his feelings, as a result not only of the original publication but also of its repetition on the “backhenrystreet” site.”

In his defence, Mr Grice said the ’Fansonline’ message board is ‘extremely quiet’ in the close season and that the post was live for only a relatively short period.

He estimated that no more than 50 people will have read the post, the Law Society Gazette said.

Mr Grice also denied that Mr Woodward would have suffered any reputational loss or loss of earnings because he is not in private practice and therefore does not have any client base of his own.

“His employment could never have been under threat as he was then and continues to be employed by the Oyston Group of companies and I believe I am one of the last people they would ever take any notice of,” his witness statement added.

Mr Woodward did not claim any loss of earnings or other financial loss but instead said it was a ‘serious libel’ because it implied he was guilty of wrongdoing when he was not.

King said Mr Woodward should be entitled to ‘substantial damages in vindication of his reputation’.

“I do not accept the defendant’s submission that the words complained of would have been treated by any reader or anyone else who became aware of them, as mere saloon talk made tongue in cheek,” he added.

King added that he had not been unsympathetic to Grice’s ‘obvious and genuine sense of grievance’ in relation to his perception of the rights and wrongs of the dispute with Oyston family, but that he must understand that these matters cannot mitigate damages for this particular libel.

Mr Grice added: “I’ve received emotional support from a few people and they know who they are, I’m thankful to you all.

Thanks also to Blackpool fans you really are the greatest and your support has genuinely been my solace in all of this.”