Simon Schofield v Politicalite Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 543 (KB)
Simon Blake & Anor v Laurence Fox
25 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 956 (KB)
High Court
Laurence Fox called two men paedophiles on Twitter. A court said he was wrong and made him pay them a lot of money. The court also told him he's not allowed to say it again. They didn't force him to publicly admit he was wrong because doing so might make things worse.
Key Facts
- •Mr Laurence Fox made defamatory allegations in tweets against Mr Simon Blake and Mr Colin Seymour, claiming they were paedophiles.
- •Liability for defamation was established in a prior judgment (Blake & Seymour v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB)).
- •Claimants sought damages, an injunction against further publication, and an order for publication of a judgment summary.
- •The defamatory statements were widely published on social media and picked up by national media.
- •Claimants experienced distress, reputational harm, and homophobic abuse as a result of the tweets.
- •Mr Fox offered an apology during his oral evidence but did not issue a formal retraction or apology to the claimants.
Legal Principles
Assessment of libel damages is a broad and holistic exercise focused on reputational harm and restorative vindication, not punishment.
Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC 3525 QB; Lachaux v Independent Print [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB); Sloutsker v Romanova [2015] EWHC 2053; Barron v Vines [2016] EWHC 1226
Injunctive relief in defamation cases is discretionary, considering the risk of repetition and the conduct of the parties.
Lachaux v Independent Print [2021] EWHC 1797 (QB)
Section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013 allows courts to order publication of a judgment summary, but this must be necessary and proportionate.
Defamation Act 2013, s.12
Outcomes
Damages awarded: £90,000 to each claimant.
To compensate for reputational harm, distress, and vindicate their reputations. The court considered the gravity of the libel, extent of publication, and the claimants' vulnerability.
Injunction granted.
To prevent Mr Fox from repeating the defamatory allegations. The court considered Mr Fox's history of impulsive and provocative public statements, and his continued animosity towards the claimants.
Order for publication of a judgment summary refused.
Not considered necessary or proportionate, given the widespread awareness of the judgment and the risk of further harm to claimants through Mr Fox's commentary.