Simon Schofield v Politicalite Ltd

Hearing dates: 23 February 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 12.00pm on 11 March 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

THE HON. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE

A Introduction

This judgment deals with remedies in this claim for libel, malicious falsehood and misuse of private information, following the entry of judgment in default of acknowledgment of service. For the reasons given below, I have awarded the claimant damages, an injunction and made an order pursuant to s.12 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The claimant, Simon Schofield, is an award-winning theatrical producer, actor, and creative director, well-known for his roles in various West End productions, including The Sound of Music, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat and Les Misérables. In 2010, he co-founded The 2 Faces Theatre CIC (previously known as The 2 Faced Theatre Ltd) (‘the Company’). The idea behind the Company was to bring London's West End to the North West of England, offering students the ability to attend workshops led by industry professionals. The Company enjoyed success for many years, however, when the claimant decided to move to London in 2020, to focus on his performing and producing career, he was unable to find anyone to take over the Company. Consequently, he closed it, and the Company was formally dissolved on 29 September 2020. In 2016, the claimant founded Sisco Entertainment Ltd (‘Sisco’), a production company, specialising in the creation and execution of theatrical shows in the UK and internationally.

The first defendant, Politicalite Ltd, is the publisher of an influential online news publication Politicalite ( www.politicalite.com) (‘the Website’), which is a popular source of news and opinion for those in the entertainment and media industries in the UK. The second defendant, Jordan Kendall, is the founder and sole director of the first defendant, and Editor-in-Chief of the Website.

The claim arises from the defendants' publication on the Website of an article on or about 24 September 2022, written by Mr Kendall, with the headline “ EXCLUSIVE: Phillip Schofield and best pal Simon ‘groomed’ [X], claim Telly insiders” (‘the Article’). I have not referred to X by name, as it would not be right to embed his name in a public judgment in circumstances where he could have no recourse. X was a student of the Company and someone the claimant knew through his previous relationship with X's sister. The claimant put it gently in explaining that this historic link appears to have contributed to “ some misconceptions or mixed-up stories and speculation” about himself, Phillip Schofield and X.

The claimant has known Phillip Schofield for about 20 years, since they met when the claimant joined the cast of Dr Dolittle, at the age of 16, playing the role of Tommy Stubbins while Phillip Schofield held the title role of Dr Dolittle. Although they share the same surname, they are not related. The claimant asked Phillip Schofield if he would become “ a Patron and what we called a ‘Famous Friend’ of the Company”, which he did. The role of the Company's famous friends was to provide help, insight and the benefit of their professional experience to the students. Phillip Schofield's role in the Company was limited to delivering one or more talks to the students when he was in Manchester.

The natural and ordinary meaning of the Article was that:

“The claimant is involved in grooming children, or is an accomplice to someone who grooms children, and through his position and work in the theatre and entertainment industry, builds up relationships with children or young adults for the purposes of manipulating, exploiting or abusing them.”

Those allegations are untrue and seriously defamatory of the claimant.

The Article alleged: (a) that the claimant is involved in grooming children and/or young people; and (b) that the claimant uses his position in the theatre and entertainment industry as a means of building relationships with children or young adults for the purposes of manipulating, exploiting or abusing them. The claimant has established that those allegations are untrue: they are malicious falsehoods.

The claimant has succeeded in his claim for defamation, malicious falsehood and misuse of private information. The defendants have not, at any stage, sought to defend their publication of the Article. They were notified of the remedies hearing, and that the court would be likely to proceed in their absence if they failed to attend. The defendants did not attend, and were not represented. For the reasons given in the ex tempore judgment I gave on 23 February 2024 ( Schofield v Politicalite Ltd[2024] EWHC 415 (KB)), I decided to proceed in their absence.

B The history of the proceedings

The Article was first published on the Website on 24 September 2022. The defendants shared it on their Twitter account the same day, and then again on 14 May 2023. Around the end of May or beginning of June 2023 news broke that Phillip Schofield had allegedly been having an affair with a younger colleague, X. The Article was given a prime spot on the Website and, in a reply tweet dated 4 June 2023, the defendants shared the Article a third time.

The claimant first complained to the defendants about the Article in a letter from his solicitors sent on 8 June 2023. The claimant proposed an amicable resolution involving the giving of an undertaking and apology, the making of a statement in open court, and payment of £3,500 legal costs, but no payment of damages. Within about 20 minutes of receipt of the claimant's solicitors' letter, Mr Kendall (on behalf of both defendants) responded in three emails sent between 3.45pm and 3.49pm on 8 June 2023:

“Bring it on! See you in court.”

“You pay us £3,500 and we'll take it down, how does that sound?”

“Nonce enablers”

The defendants did not remove the Article. The claimant's solicitors wrote again on 29 June 2023, indicating the claimant's intention to bring proceedings if he did not receive the relief identified in the letter of 8 June. The defendants' one line response, by email the same day, said:

“We have taken the article offline.”

On 29 June 2023, the Article was taken offline. On 4 July 2023, the claimant's solicitors wrote to the defendants that removal of the publication alone was far from sufficient to rectify the damage. The letter identified the relief required to avoid this claim being brought. The defendants did not respond.

On 3 August 2023 the claimant's solicitors served the claim form, particulars of claim and response pack on the defendants. Within about half an hour of receipt of those documents, in three emails sent between 4.40pm and 4.44pm on 3 August 2023, Mr Kendall (on behalf of both defendants) wrote:

“Stop emailing me spam, or we'll re-upload the article and publish new details about your client. This will be our next steps.”

“Your not getting a penny from us, so keep sending your spam, it will be marked in our spam folder. NONCE”

“Thanks for the correspondence, the article and truthful claims are now back online. [Article link]”

As threatened in the first of those emails, and indicated in the last, the defendants re-published the Article on the Website on 3 August 2023. It remained on the Website for a further day or two before again being removed.

On 21 August 2023 the deadline for the defendants to file an acknowledgement of service or defence passed without them filing any acknowledgment or defence.

On 6 September 2023 the claimant applied for default judgment. On 29 November 2023 Nicklin J granted the claimant judgment in default and gave directions for this hearing (‘the Order’). The defendants were informed of their right to apply to set aside the default judgment. They have not sought to do so. The defendants were given directions for filing and service of evidence and skeleton arguments to which they have not responded. As I have said, they failed to attend the remedies hearing.

C Damages

The legal principles

In accordance with CPR 12.12(1), the court should assess damages on the basis of the claimant's unchallenged particulars of claim. The claimant has succeeded in his claim based on three separate causes of action, namely, defamation, malicious falsehood and misuse of private information.

General compensatory damages for defamation must compensate the claimant for (i) the damage to his reputation, (ii) vindicate his good name and (iii) take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused. It should be no more than is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting reputation necessary in a democratic society in pursuit of that aim, and proportionate to that need: Barron v Vines [21(8)]. Warby J (as he then was) addressed the legal principles applicable in assessing general compensatory damages for defamation in Sloutsker v Romanova[2015] EWHC 2053 (QB)[2015] EMLR 27 at [74]–[82]. Of particular relevance to the assessment in this case are the following observations:

“74. In cases such as this, where there is no claim for punitive or exemplary damages, the purpose of a damages award is compensatory. The aim as in all tort cases is to restore the claimant so far as money can do so, to the position he would have been in had the libels not...