Blake & Ors v Fox [2022] EWHC 2726 (QB) (26 May 2022)

Blake & Ors v Fox [2022] EWHC 2726 (QB) (26 May 2022)

The application for jury trial was self-contained, ambitious, and failed; costs should follow the event, with defendant paying claimants' costs. Determination of natural and ordinary meaning in defamation is objective, limited to material available to all readers, and does not permit partitioning of readership or expert evidence on context at this stage.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2726 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Simon Blake; Claimant: Colin Seymour; Claimant: Nicola Thorp; Defendant: Lawrence Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Post Application Ruling; Consequential Orders Following Refusal of Jury Trial Application
Outcome
Defendant's application for jury trial refused; defendant ordered to pay claimants' costs of the application; no directions for disclosure or expert evidence on context.
Legal Topics
Jury Trial in Defamation, Single Meaning Rule, Admissibility of Evidence, Context in Publication, Costs Orders
Defamation Media Law Jury Trial in Defamation Single Meaning Rule Admissibility of Evidence Context in Publication Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Blake

Claimant

Colin Seymour

Claimant

Nicola Thorp

Claimant

Lawrence Fox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Post Application Ruling; Consequential Orders Following Refusal of Jury Trial Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded to claimants following refusal of defendant's jury trial application
  2. 2 Admissibility and scope of evidence regarding context for determination of natural and ordinary meaning in defamation
  3. 3 Principles governing determination of meaning in Twitter publications

Ratio Decidendi

The application for jury trial was self-contained, ambitious, and failed; costs should follow the event, with defendant paying claimants' costs. Determination of natural and ordinary meaning in defamation is objective, limited to material available to all readers, and does not permit partitioning of readership or expert evidence on context at this stage.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for jury trial refused; defendant ordered to pay claimants' costs of the application; no directions for disclosure or expert evidence on context.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimants' costs of mode of trial application
  • No directions for disclosure or expert evidence on context for determination of meaning