Blake & Ors v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321 (17 October 2025)

Blake & Ors v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321 (17 October 2025)

The High Court judge erred in law by relying on third-party publications and specific incidents to infer Mr Fox had a bad reputation, contrary to the rule in Dingle, and by applying the wrong legal test for causation of reputational harm. The evidence compelled a finding that each claimant's tweet caused serious harm to Mr Fox's reputation. The order dismissing Mr Fox's claim is set aside and the claim remitted for retrial on remaining issues.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1321
Parties
Respondent/claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Simon Blake; Respondent/claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Colin Seymour; Respondent/claimant/defendant to Counterclaim: Nicola Thorp; Appellant/defendant/counterclaimant: Laurence Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order dismissing Mr Fox's claim set aside; claim remitted for retrial on remaining issues.
Legal Topics
Serious Harm Requirement, Reputational Harm, Defamation Act 2013 S.1, Rule in Dingle, Causation in Libel, Opinion Vs Fact in Defamation, Damages Assessment
Defamation Media Law Tort Serious Harm Requirement Reputational Harm Defamation Act 2013 S.1 Rule in Dingle Causation in Libel +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Blake

Respondent/claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Colin Seymour

Respondent/claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Nicola Thorp

Respondent/claimant/defendant to Counterclaim

Laurence Fox

Appellant/defendant/counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in law in its approach to proof of serious harm under s.1(1) Defamation Act 2013
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied the rule in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd
  3. 3 Whether the judge wrongly relied on third-party publications and specific incidents to find bad reputation or lack of causation

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court judge erred in law by relying on third-party publications and specific incidents to infer Mr Fox had a bad reputation, contrary to the rule in Dingle, and by applying the wrong legal test for causation of reputational harm. The evidence compelled a finding that each claimant's tweet caused serious harm to Mr Fox's reputation. The order dismissing Mr Fox's claim is set aside and the claim remitted for retrial on remaining issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court order dismissing Mr Fox's claim set aside; claim remitted for retrial on remaining issues.

Orders

  • Set aside High Court order dismissing Mr Fox's claim
  • Remit Mr Fox's claim to the High Court for retrial on remaining issues