Social media influencer James Howe and WP Property Group clash over Instagram posts about Highgate apartment complex

He went online to share his views about a Highgate complex near a one-time Adelaide architectural icon – and has sparked a legal warning from its developer. See the block.

An influencer has been told he will be sued for “injurious falsehood” if he does not delete a video comparing an Adelaide apartment block to a paper house with “chips stuck to it”.

Furniture designer and Instagram architecture critic James Howe has been served with pre-action paperwork by lawyers acting for WP Property Group.

In its papers, the group accuses Mr Howe of criticising its Highgate apartment complex – near the former site of the landmark “White House” – “with malicious intent”.

It has demanded Mr Howe remove the post, publicly apologise, state he has “no proper basis” to criticise the development, and pay $10,000 compensation.

On Thursday, Mr Howe told The Advertiser he did not intend to comply with those requests.

James Howe posting videos labelling a Highgate apartment complex as ugly. Picture: @jameshowestudio on Instagram

A paper house with chips stuck to it, from Mr Howe’s video. Picture: @jameshowestudio on Instagram

“This is a flimsy pretext for trying to sue me, at best … I have every right to say their buildings are ugly, because they are,” he said.

“If developers want me to keep my mouth shut, they should stop building aggressively hideous buildings … trying to sue me is not going to work.

“I love this city, and I despise what’s happening to it, with ugly apartments and houses popping up everywhere, destroying the vibe.”

WP Property Group, however, said it had no desire to “censor” Mr Howe.

“That is not a fair characterisation of WP’s position … WP acknowledges that Mr Howe is free to express his opinion as to architectural matters,” its lawyer, Charles Moran, said.

“However, WP’s view is that comparing WP’s apartments to the White House in the context of an inaccurate assertion that the apartments replaced the White House is not reasonable.

“As a result of WP’s concerns about Mr Howe’s incorrect assertion, WP has taken confidential pre-litigation steps in an attempt to address its concerns – it has not, however, sued Mr Howe.”

The historic White House, on the corner of Fullarton and Cross roads, was demolished after the state government acquired its land.

Mr Howe is a furniture designer, former freelance journalist and photographer.

On his Instagram account, he regularly posts his thoughts about construction sites, building developments and architecture around Adelaide.

His June 22 video, which criticised the Highgate apartments, has attracted 1256 likes while a September 18 follow-up, discussing WP’s legal letters, has been liked 8057 times.

In their first letter to Mr Howe, WP’s counsel say there are “certain inaccuracies with what you posted” about the development, on the intersection of Fullarton and Cross Rds.

They say the White House was demolished by the state government, not WP, as part of a road-widening project.

“Having unreasonably sought to portray our client as being responsible for the demolition of the White House, your video then disparages the build quality of the apartments,” they say.

“You, in a mocking way, compare the quality to a paper house of the sought (sic) a child might create with leaves on it.

“The apartments are of perfectly reasonable quality … comparing the apartments to the White House in this way is not reasonable.”

They claim Mr Howe’s post is “extremely damaging” to WP’s reputation and has caused “untold damage”.

The WP Property Group apartments on the corner of Cross and Fullarton roads. Picture: Roy VanDerVegt

The apartments built by WP Property Group. Picture: Roy VanDerVegt

The buidlings are set on a prominent block on a major intersection. Picture: Roy VanDerVegt

In their second letter, WP’s counsel say Mr Howe’s refusal to remove the post leaves him liable to “injurious falsehood”.

“It seems clear now that the Instagram is made with malicious intent,” they say.

“This is because even when it has been confirmed to you that the posting is factually inaccurate in key ways, you have refused to remove the posting.”

They offer to settle the claim for $10,000, along with an apology and removal of the video.

On Thursday, Mr Howe said he had spoken with a lawyer and intended to defend the case.

His video, he said, discussed a paper house with “chips” stuck to it – not “leaves”.

“WP Property Group thinks I said they knocked the White House down … I never said anything of the kind, you can go back and watch my reel and see for yourself,” he said.

“It’s common knowledge the White House was compulsorily acquired for an intersection upgrade, so why on earth would I tell my followers WP knocked it down?

“Even if I did say they knocked it down, which I didn’t, how would this be a damaging statement? ‘Property developer demolishes building’ is not exactly the kind of shocking headline that would make people pull their business.

“I can’t imagine there would be a problem if, in a parallel universe, I’d said they knocked the White House down, but went on to praise their apartments.”

Mr Moran said his client’s “primary concern” was the “incorrect assertion” WP had “replaced” the White House with the apartment complex.

“WP’s apartments were to be constructed adjacent to the White House,” he said.

“The White House was demolished, not by WP, but by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport to widen the road.

“WP is not seeking to censor Mr Howe.”