Laurence Fox's libel claim reinstated by Court of Appeal

The dispute under consideration in Blake & Ors v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321 began back in 2020 after actor turned activist Laurence Fox published a tweet encouraging others to join him in a boycott of Sainsbury’s after the supermarket had announced it would be celebrating Black History Month.

Former deputy chair of Stonewall Simon Blake, drag artist Colin Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp responded with the following tweets:-

“Any company giving future employment to Laurence Fox, or providing him with a platform, does so with the complete knowledge that he is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist. And they should probably re-read their own statements of ‘solidarity’ with the black community”
“What a mess. What a racist twat.”
“Imagine being this proud of being a racist! So cringe. Total snowflake behaviour.”

Mr Fox replied in turn:

“Pretty rich coming from a paedophile.”
“Says the paedophile.”
“Hey @nicolathorpAny company giving future employment to Nicola Thorpe [sic] or providing her with a platform does so with the complete knowledge that she is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a paedophile.”

On 13 October 2020 Mr Fox rowed back:

“To that end and not because I’ve been sued (I haven’t) or because anyone has put me under pressure to say something (they haven’t), I’d like to apologise for the way I reacted last week in reaction to being constantly (without any evidence whatsoever) labelled a racist … I adore our beautiful language. Seeing it corrupted by casually tossing horrible insults around in order to maintain a climate of fear to silence different opinions, saddens me hugely, I was attempting to make the point that words have meanings that are extremely powerful … On reflection, I could have done this in a wiser and more effective way. I abhor discrimination in all its forms, just as I take a principled stance against racism. The end. L.”

But that was not the end, and on 1 April 2021 Blake, Seymour and Thorp sued Fox for libel over the ‘paedophile’ allegations. Fox counterclaimed for the racism allegations.

The High Court

Thorp’s claim was dismissed before trial on the basis that it had not caused serious harm to her reputation.

Blake and Seymour’s claims succeeded at trial because, in Mr Collins Rice’s words, the allegation that they were paedophiles was “a gross, groundless, and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them”.

Fox’s counterclaim failed because the Collins Rice J decided that his reputation was not seriously harmed by the tweets. In the circumstances, the Judge did not consider the positive defences of truth or honest opinion advanced in response to the claim.

The judgment on liability (Blake & Anor v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB)) can be found here.

Blake and Seymour were each awarded £90,000 in damages.

Both parties cross-appealed.

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal agreed with the decision to dismiss Thorp’s claim on the basis of a lack of serious harm to reputation, finding that Fox’s tweet about her was an obvious use of parody.

Whilst the Court upheld the decision on liability in respect of Blake and Seymour’s claims, it found that the award of damages was manifestly excessive, particularly when taking account of Mr Fox’s apology/mitigating conduct. Damages were reduced to £45,000 each.

The Court of Appeal allowed Fox’s appeal on his counterclaim, reversing the High Court’s finding on serious harm on the basis the law had been misapplied. Mr Justice Warby summarised the reasons:-

“[68] The judge inferred from third-party publications and specific incidents that Mr Fox had acquired a bad reputation for being a racist. That was contrary to long-established common law principles, which apply equally when assessing serious harm. In addition it was in part unsound for procedural and evidential reasons … the evidence compelled a finding that each of the claimants’ tweets caused serious harm to Mr Fox’s general reputation. The judge’s findings that the tweets did not cause harm to his agency relationship or career are vitiated by legal error: the judge applied, in material parts, the wrong legal test on causation.”

Lord Justice Dingemans concurred with this judgment stating the following:-

“[131] What can be said for the Dingle rule is that it means that a claimant about whom a defamatory statement has been published will not be prevented from vindicating their reputation because earlier defamatory statements to the same effect had been made. It is apparent that the judge’s approach to the issue of causation of serious harm failed to respect this rule …”

What happens next

Whilst Blake and Seymour’s claim has concluded, Fox’s counterclaim has been remitted back to the High Court for a retrial.

With the question of serious harm having been resolved in Fox’s favour, the two issues left for trial are (1) whether it is substantially true that Fox is a racist and (2) whether the Blake and Seymour tweets amount to honest opinion.

Whilst Blake and Seymour only need establish one of the two defences, Thorp is unable to advance an honest opinion defence because earlier in the litigation it was found that her tweet did not indicate the basis of the opinion (a requirement of an honest opinion defence under section 3(3) of the Defamation Act 2013). Thus, assuming the claim against Thorp is not settled before trial, a judicial determination will need to be made as to whether Fox is a racist or not. Given the strong and polarised views around questions of racism at the moment, one has to have some sympathy for the trial judge.