03/02/2020 Reachlocal UK Ltd & Anor v Bennett & Ors [2014] EWHC 3405 (QB) (21 October 2014) submits, the position is governed by CPR 12.11(1), by which such judgment shall be given as it appears to the court that the claimants are entitled to on their statement of case. 8. In broad terms, the claimants' case against the defendants in defamation is that the defendants in early 2014 launched a campaign of denigration of the claimants, which was primarily directed at the claimants' own customers. That campaign consisted of emailed material, backed up by telephone calls, and it resulted in substantial losses to the claimants by way of lost business. It is the claimants' case that the defendants' mass dissemination of emails and telephone calls could only have been achieved if they had been in possession of a list of their customers. It is, of course, part of the claimants' pleaded case, for which they now have judgment, that the defendants did indeed obtain their customer database, and used the contact details on the database to contact customers and solicit them away from doing business with the claimants. Indeed, that was admitted by the person calling himself Craig Anderson, the second defendant, in the course of a telephone call with a representative of the claimants. 9. Almost a year before this campaign began, the first claimant and the fifth defendant entered into what was called an 'affiliate agreement' dated 13 March 2013, less than three months after the fifth defendant was incorporated, by which it was agreed that the fifth defendant would refer potential customers to the first claimant. By clause 11 of that agreement, the fifth defendant was required for one year after termination not to take any action to solicit or divert any business referrals or company customers away from the first claimant, and not to induce customers and others to terminate, reduce or alter their involvement, association or business with the first claimant. That period will expire on 13 March 2015. The present claim for breach of contract arises from breach of the non-solicitation clause. 10. The claimants now claim general and special damages for defamation, to be assessed, as well as final injunctive relief. They have abandoned their claim for aggravated damages, and for present purposes do not pursue their claim in malicious falsehood. Nor do they seek damages for breach of contract or breach of confidence, contenting themselves with the protection of injunction. Libel 11. The claimants' case is that around 13 February 2014, the defendants sent out to their customers an email with an attachment in pdf form. The parts of that attachment of which complaint is made read as follows: Reach Local Exposed: Scamming Since 2008 It is well know (sic) that Reach Local is one of the UK's largest AdWords' Certified Pay Per Click Agencies, but there is a dark side to the agency that is now starting to emerge. The company have been offering their services for well over six years and claim to produce success across a number of different industry sectors, but how can a company turn over $455 million and claim to only take 15% management fee? The answer to the above question is simple: let's say YOU want to spend $15,000 a month on your PPC. Normally an agency will act as third-party management; i.e. you pay Google for your media, and the company will invoice you separately for their time, consultancy and management. This is where ReachLocal make their extra money: they use their clever dashboard and other tricks to make it look like you're spending the full $15k a month, they ask you to pay them direct, so not only do you pay them the management fee, but also paying them (sic) for ad spend as well. This is where the scam takes place and the actual amount they spend on the campaign is really unknown. Some clients we have spoken to claim they only spend 50 - 60% of that spend and ReachLocal pocket the rest. It's a clever ploy to trick people into spending more. ReachLocal have many claims to fame; one of which being in partnership with Google only a small number of UK agencies can claim this digital knighthood. This causes many people trust them (sic) from the outset, but after speaking with a number of different sales www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/3405.html 3/14