Blake & Ors v Fox [2022] EWHC 3542 (KB) (01 November 2022)

Blake & Ors v Fox [2022] EWHC 3542 (KB) (01 November 2022)

The Defendant's Tweets bore the natural and ordinary meaning that each Claimant was a paedophile, which is an allegation of fact and defamatory at common law. The Claimants' Tweets bore the natural and ordinary meaning that the Defendant was a racist, which is an expression of opinion, not fact. For the First and Second Claimants, the basis of the opinion was indicated by quoting the Defendant's Sainsbury's Tweet; for the Third Claimant, the basis was not indicated, so the honest opinion defence is not available to her.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 3542 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Simon Blake; Claimant: Colin Seymour; Claimant: Nicola Thorp; Defendant: Lawrence Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues Regarding Meaning, Defamatory Nature, and Fact/opinion Distinction
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: Defendant's Tweets are defamatory allegations of fact; Claimants' Tweets are expressions of opinion (with the exception that the Third Claimant's Tweet does not indicate the basis for opinion).
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publications, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Honest Opinion Defence, Defamatory Imputation, Preliminary Issues
Defamation Media Law Libel Social Media Publications Natural and Ordinary Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Honest Opinion Defence Defamatory Imputation +1 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Blake

Claimant

Colin Seymour

Claimant

Nicola Thorp

Claimant

Lawrence Fox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) Claim and Counterclaim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues Regarding Meaning, Defamatory Nature, and Fact/opinion Distinction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Defendant's Tweets about the Claimants?
  2. 2 Are the Defendant's Tweets defamatory at common law?
  3. 3 Are the Defendant's Tweets statements of fact or opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's Tweets bore the natural and ordinary meaning that each Claimant was a paedophile, which is an allegation of fact and defamatory at common law. The Claimants' Tweets bore the natural and ordinary meaning that the Defendant was a racist, which is an expression of opinion, not fact. For the First and Second Claimants, the basis of the opinion was indicated by quoting the Defendant's Sainsbury's Tweet; for the Third Claimant, the basis was not indicated, so the honest opinion defence is not available to her.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: Defendant's Tweets are defamatory allegations of fact; Claimants' Tweets are expressions of opinion (with the exception that the Third Claimant's Tweet does not indicate the basis for opinion).

Orders

  • First and Second Claimants may rely on honest opinion defence; Third Claimant may not rely on honest opinion defence unless further evidence is adduced or facts change.
  • Further issues, including serious harm and any remaining defences, to be determined at trial.