Simon Blake v Laurence Fox

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Nicklin
Judgment Date18 May 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] EWHC 1124 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: QB-2021-001248
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Between:
(1) Simon Blake
(2) Colin Seymour
(3) Nicola Thorp
Claimants
and
Laurence Fox
Defendant

[2022] EWHC 1124 (QB)

Before:

THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Nicklin

Case No: QB-2021-001248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS LIST

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Heather Rogers QC and Beth Grossman (instructed by Patron Law Ltd) for the Claimants

Alexandra Marzec and Greg Callus (instructed by Gateley Tweed LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 28 April 2022

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down by the Judge remotely by circulation to the parties' representatives by e-mail and release to The National Archives. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 2pm on 18 May 2022.

Mr Justice Nicklin The Honourable
1

The is the judgment following the Defendant's application for a direction that the trial of this action be by Judge and jury. There is a separate application by the Claimants for a direction of trial of certain issues as preliminary issues (see [19(iv)] below), but this will be resolved at a subsequent hearing.

A: The parties

2

The First Claimant was a trustee of Stonewall until 30 June 2021. The Second Claimant is an entertainer who has appeared in various television programmes, including the first season of Ru Paul's Drag Race UK. The Third Claimant is an actor, television commentator and writer. She has appeared in the ITV drama Coronation Street, and other television programmes.

3

The Defendant is an actor, perhaps best known for his portrayal of the character “Hathaway” in the ITV drama Lewis between 2006–2015.

4

Each of the parties is active on the social media platform Twitter.

B: Events giving rise to the claim

5

On 1 October 2020, the supermarket chain Sainsbury's published two Tweets on its Twitter account @sainsburys.

i) The first Tweet, at 10.11 displayed a graphic “ Celebrating Black History Month” with the words:

“We are Celebrating Black History Month this October. For more information visit [website link given]. #blackhistorymonth”

The hyperlink included in the first Tweet linked to a page on Sainsbury's website which was headed: “ Celebrating Black History Month”. Under a sub-heading, “ What we have been doing to support our colleagues”, Sainsbury's included: “ Recently we provided our black colleagues with a safe space to gather in response to the Black Lives Matters movement” (“the Sainsbury's Website BLM Statement”).

ii) The second Tweet, at 15.22, contained a graphic with the words:

“We are proud to celebrate Black History Month together with our Black colleagues, customers and communities and we will not tolerate racism.

We proudly represent and serve our diverse society and anyone who does not want to shop with an inclusive retailer is welcome to shop elsewhere.”

6

On 4 October 2020, the Defendant published the following Tweet from his Twitter account (@LozzaFox) (“the Defendant's Tweet”):

“Dear @sainsburys

I won't be shopping in your supermarket ever again whilst you promote racial segregation and discrimination

I sincerely hope others join me. RT.

Further reading here [website link given]”

The Defendant's case is that the link given in his Tweet was to the Sainsbury's Website BLM Statement.

7

Each Claimant posted a Tweet on 4 October 2020:

i) at 16.45, the Third Claimant Tweeted:

“Any company giving future employment to Laurence Fox, or providing him with a platform, does so with the complete knowledge that his is unequivocally, publicly and undeniably a racist. And they should probably re-read their own statements of ‘solidarity’ with the black community.”

ii) at 17.11, the First Claimant quote Tweeted the Defendant's Tweet and said:

“What a mess. What a racist twat.”

iii) at 17.19, the Second Claimant quote Tweeted the Defendant's Tweet and said:

“Imagine being this proud of being a racist! So cringe. Total snowflake behaviour.”

8

In response to the Claimants' Tweets set out in the previous paragraph, the Defendant quote-Tweeted the relevant Tweet, and:

i) at 17.29, in response to the First Claimant's Tweet, the Defendant Tweeted:

“Pretty rich coming from a paedophile.”

ii) at 17.30, in response to the Second Claimant's Tweet, the Defendant Tweeted:

“Says the paedophile.”

iii) at 17.51, in response to the Third Claimant's Tweet, the Defendant Tweeted:

“Hey @nicolathorp

Any 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.”

9

At 18.24, on 4 October 2020, the Defendant posted the following Tweet:

“Language is powerful. To accuse someone of racism without any evidence whatsoever to back up that accusation is a deep slander. It carries the same stigma and reputation destroying harm as accusing someone of paedophilia. Here endeth the lesson.”

10

At some point during the morning of 5 October 2020, the Defendant deleted the Tweets he had posted the earlier evening (set out in [8] above).

C: The Claim and the Counterclaim

(1) The Claim

11

The Claim Form was issued on 1 April 2021. The Claimants alleged that the Defendant's Tweets on 4 October 2020 had libelled them, and they claimed remedies including damages and an injunction. Particulars of Claim dated 6 April 2021 set out the detail of the Claimants' claims. The Claimants contended that each of the Defendant's Tweets bore the natural and ordinary meaning that each Claimant:

“… was a paedophile, who had a sexual interest in children, and had (or was likely to have) engaged in sexual acts with or involving children, such acts amounting to serious criminal offences.”

12

Particulars of alleged serious harm to the reputations of the Claimants were set out in the Particulars of Claim together with matters relied upon in relation to the Claimants' claims for damages.

(2) The Defence & Counterclaim

13

On 21 May 2021, the Defendant filed a Defence and Counterclaim.

14

In his Defence, the Defendant:

i) did not dispute the fact of publication of his Tweets on 4 October 2020, or that the words of each Tweet had referred to the relevant Claimant;

ii) disputed the natural and ordinary meaning of the Tweets and, in particular, whether they were defamatory of the Claimants. An ordinary reasonable reader would have understood that the Defendant's words were “ tit-for-tat vulgar abuse”, which did not bear a literal meaning that the Claimants were paedophiles, and that the Defendant “ was giving the Claimants a taste of their own medicine”. As to the natural and ordinary meaning, he contended:

“The readers' understanding of [his Tweets] (and each of them, if not all were published to a particular publishee) will have been affected by [matters set out by way of context]. Different publishees, depending how and when they read the relevant Responsive Tweet(s) would have been aware of these matters at different levels of detail. However, all publishees would have been aware of the following minimum irreducible features of the words complained of:

(1) Each [of the Defendant's Tweets] was made by the Defendant in direct response to an allegation of racism against him by the particular Claimant.

(2) There was no apparent cause or reason for the relevant Claimant to allege that the Defendant was a racist.

(3) The Defendant retaliated by calling the relevant Claimant a ‘paedophile’”;

iii) contended that the publication of each Tweet had not caused, nor was each likely to cause, serious harm to the reputation of the Claimants or any of them, relying principally on the clarification he had published within an hour of the publication of the original Tweets and the deletion of the Tweets the following morning;

iv) relied upon a substantive defence of reply-to-attack qualified privilege on the grounds that each Claimant had posted a Tweet calling him a racist; and

v) made clear that he was not alleging against any of the Claimants that s/he was a paedophile.

15

By his Counterclaim, the Defendant brought a claim for libel against each Claimant arising from each Claimant's Tweet, published on 4 October 2020 (set out in [7] above). He alleged that each of the Claimants' Tweets was defamatory of him and that the meanings of the relevant Tweets were pleaded as follows:

“The [First Claimant's] Tweet and the [Second Claimant's] Tweet each meant and was understood to mean that the Defendant was a racist.

The [Third Claimant's] Tweet meant that the Defendant was unequivocally and undeniably a racist.”

16

In a separate paragraph, the Defendant added, by way of clarification:

“Although ‘racist’ is an ordinary English word requiring no definition, for the avoidance of any doubt it means someone who is hostile to people of different ethnicities, races or skin colours; and/or who believes that some racial or ethnic groups, or people with certain skin colours, are inferior to others; and/or who believes that people should be segregated based on their racial or ethnic origins or the colour of their skin.”

17

The Defendant contended that the Claimants' Tweets had caused serious harm to his reputation. The Defendant relied upon the seriousness of the allegation of racism and that the Claimants had not deleted their Tweets, and contended that, as a consequence of their publications, the Claimant has become seen as a racist and has become a hate-figure for large numbers of people. As to particular alleged harm, the Defendant alleges that, on 12 November 2021, the Claimant's agent told him that she was no longer prepared to continue to represent him, that the Defendant's financial prospects of well-remunerated acting work have been very greatly diminished by no longer enjoying representation from a first-class agency and that the Defendant considers that his acting career is likely over causing him considerable financial loss.

18

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT