A woman branded a ‘fraudster’ and a ‘troll’ by Optical Express has lost her claim for defamation.

Sasha Rodoy set up a website for dissatisfied customers of the Glasgow-based firm called ‘Optical Express Ruined My Life’.

When four of the customers contacted the company to complain about their eye surgery, it responded by sending them letters discrediting Ms Rodoy.

The letters, approved by multi-millionaire Scots businessman David Mousdale, the boss of Optical Express, stated she was a ‘vexatious individual’, a ‘self-confessed and known fraudster’ and that she engaged in online trolling of company staff serious enough to involve the police.

Ms Rodoy, 72, of London, lodged a claim for defamation and alleged that the firm’s motive in publishing the statements was to discourage patients from relying on her advice and to protect itself from compensation claims.

Following a trial at the High Court in London, a judge dismissed her legal action after finding that Optical Express’s comments about her were ‘substantially true’.

The court heard evidence that in the 1990s Ms Rodoy fabricated a story about setting up an agency called Decoy Dolls that used actresses to trap men cheating on their wives.

The story appeared in several publications and on television chat shows, with her paid for interviews or appearances.

In court, the pensioner admitted giving interviews that were not accurate but downplayed it as a ‘prank’. Her claim stated that long-past conduct cannot justify a present-tense accusation that she ‘is a fraudster’.

The trial also heard she tracked Optical Express staff online and posted photographs and derogatory comments about them and their families over a number of years.

Mr Moulsdale, Optical Express’s founder and one of Scotland’s richest men, told the court Ms Rodoy was threatening his business and defended monitoring her activities.

He said: ‘As the claimant was running a website and social media channels containing our business name, and many of our patients were posting on these channels and she was offering her advice and opinion on their care provided by Optical Express, we began monitoring her website.

‘We have someone who’s threatening our brand, threatening our people, threatening me personally and my directors. Of course we’re going to monitor that person’s activity.’

The judge found that Mr Moulsdale, 57, was not motivated by ‘malice’ when he wrote the comments about Ms Rodoy and instructed staff to include them in letters to patients.

In his written ruling, Mr Justice Griffiths said: ‘I do not think, having heard him give evidence, and having considered all the other evidence, that Mr Moulsdale was motivated by personal animus or spite towards Ms Rodoy.

‘He genuinely thought she was a nuisance and a menace, not only to his business, but also to the patients. He knew her views on refractive eye surgery and he honestly and reasonably considered them to be contrary to mainstream professional and regulatory opinion.

‘Her campaign against providers of refractive eye surgery in general, and Optical Express in particular, was, for Ms Rodoy, a vehicle for indiscriminate and disingenuous attention-seeking, mockery, cruelty and abuse.

‘In short, it was an opportunity for trolling which Ms Rodoy embraced wholeheartedly.

‘It is clear to me from the evidence that Ms Rodoy relished winding up, insulting, and upsetting all sorts of people, whether senior executives or more junior people, including call centre and online chat operatives.

‘My conclusion is that the imputation in the defamatory letters that “Ms Rodoy trolls Optical Express and many of its staff online” was substantially true at the time the letters were sent.’

Ms Rodoy started campaigning against laser eye surgery after claiming an operation by another company in 2011 ‘ruined her life’.

Optical Express was founded in 1991 by Mr Moulsdale and now has more than 130 clinics across the UK, Ireland, and mainland Europe.

In a statement, Optical Express said it was 'pleased, but not at all surprised' by the court's decision.

It said: 'Our view from the outset was that this case had no merit and we robustly defended it.'

It added: 'We will consider carefully the judgment before deciding on any future steps.'