Simon Blake & Ors. v Lawrence Fox

Simon Blake & Ors. v Lawrence Fox

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 about the Defendant bore the meaning that he was a racist, which is an expression of opinion, not fact. For the First and Second Claimants, the basis of their opinion was indicated by reference to the Defendant's Sainsbury's Tweet. The Third Claimant's Tweet did not indicate the basis of her opinion, so she cannot rely on the honest opinion defence.

Parties
Claimant: Simon Blake; Claimant: Colin Seymour; Claimant: Nicola Thorp; Defendant: Lawrence Fox
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; findings on meaning, defamatory nature, fact/opinion, and indication of basis for opinion. No final judgment on liability or damages.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publications, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Honest Opinion Defence, Defamatory Imputation, Serious Harm Requirement
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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Blake

Claimant

Colin Seymour

Claimant

Nicola Thorp

Claimant

Lawrence Fox

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Tweets in question?
  2. 2 Are the Tweets defamatory at common law?
  3. 3 Are the 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 about the Defendant bore the meaning that he was a racist, which is an expression of opinion, not fact. For the First and Second Claimants, the basis of their opinion was indicated by reference to the Defendant's Sainsbury's Tweet. The Third Claimant's Tweet did not indicate the basis of her opinion, so she cannot rely on the honest opinion defence.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; findings on meaning, defamatory nature, fact/opinion, and indication of basis for opinion. No final judgment on liability or damages.

Orders

  • The Defendant's Tweets are found to be allegations of fact and defamatory at common law.
  • The Claimants' Tweets are found to be expressions of opinion; for the First and Second Claimants, the basis of opinion was indicated; for the Third Claimant, it was not.