The High Court has refused two Amazon companies’ application to pause a solicitor’s defamation action against them until his separate case against the publisher of a book is decided.
In a judgment delivered electronically on 29 May 2025, Mr Justice Barr said the proceedings against Amazon.com Inc and Amazon Services UK Limited should be allowed to progress. He proposed that the final order record refusal of the relief sought in their motion. The parties were given three weeks to make written submissions on the final order, costs and any other matters, with the case listed for mention on 24 June 2025.
Paul Tweed alleges that a passage in “Subversion: The Strategic Weaponisation of Narratives”, by Dr Andreas Kreig, defames him. The passage refers to a “British libel lawyer” but does not name Mr Tweed. He says footnoted newspaper articles identify him and pleads that the passage portrays him as an unethical solicitor and as using legal action to intimidate critics of the UAE. Those are allegations, not findings made in this application.
Mr Tweed has a separate defamation action against Georgetown University Press, the book’s publisher. Amazon argued that the cases share issues and that resolving the publisher case first could save court time and costs. It also said the passage did not identify Mr Tweed directly and that sales in Ireland were limited. The court recorded evidence that sales to Irish customers had risen from 12 by 18 June 2024, to 14 by 1 April 2025, and 16 by the hearing on 15 May 2025.
The judge found that Mr Tweed had not culpably delayed these proceedings and that the publisher case was not certain to reach trial first. He also held that a verdict in the publisher case would not bind a separate jury hearing the action against Amazon. The cases involve some common issues, but the action against Amazon may also involve an innocent-publication defence and claims for aggravated and punitive damages based on matters specific to those defendants. The judge noted that Mr Tweed could not recover twice for the same reputational damage.
The judgment does not determine whether the passage is defamatory, whether it refers to Mr Tweed, or whether Amazon is liable. It refuses a stay at this stage. The defendants may renew their application when the case is being listed for hearing. At that point, the judge in charge of the jury list will decide the order of hearing and whether the actions should be linked. The court made no decision on that question.