jimjim1
Many thanks for your well written and informative response. Actually. I'm not a million miles from what you have described, and in my earlier post, I was going to allude to the "Maxwell Defence": ie. that he always sued, thereby creating a deterrence effect against those that would report him.
On hindsight my choice of words is poor, but the law is clear. The truth is not defamation.
If (always a big word) you can prove the truth and if (again...) you are not easily intimidated by threats of legal action, then the ball swings back into the pursuers court.
Corporate entities nowadays tread warily when faced with those that don't play by their rules. I refer you to the world famous Macdonald's libel case, often referred to as the biggest
PR disaster in corporate history.
In this instance, your man is confident he has the facts and the outfit in question does not appear to be of a size that has the resources to clobber back. Having approached a solicitor myself re defamation, it is not something they take on lightly if the claim is fanciful. If (that word again) the facts are as reported here, no no-win-no-fee solicitor would touch it with a barge pole, as they would be taking all the risk on a no-hoper.
Incidently, would the libel sit with him anyway? Tripadvisor have just been successfully sued because a punter posted an inaccurate review on their website.