Libel and Reputational Harm
This article discussed reputational harm in a defamation case involving Laurence Fox, Simon Blake, Colin Seymour and Nicola Thorp. The case, in fact, arose from a series of tweets exchanged in October 2020. The dispute began when Sainsbury’s published tweets celebrating Black History Month and stating their commitment to not tolerating racism.
On 4 October 2020, Laurence Fox, an actor and political activist, responded by tweeting that he would not shop at Sainsbury’s while they “promote racial segregation and discrimination” and encouraged others to join his boycott.
Following Fox’s tweet, Simon Blake, Colin Seymour, and Nicola Thorp (the claimants) each responded on Twitter, accusing Fox of being “a racist”.
In response to these tweets, Fox posted three tweets of his own (before shortly deleting them) accusing Blake, Seymour, and Thorp of being “paedophiles”. Consequently, this led to the claimants suing Fox for libel, while Fox counterclaimed against them.
First instance decision
Mrs Justice Collins Rice in the High Court dismissed Thorp’s claim against Fox before the trial on the basis that the tweet about her was an obvious use of parody and not defamatory at common law.
However, following a trial in January 2024, the trial judge found that Fox’s tweets calling Blake and Seymour “paedophiles” were defamatory statements of fact and caused serious reputational harm. Further, they were awarded damages of £90,000 each. Therefore, in light of that determination, she decided not to determine the defences of truth and honest opinion.
Additionally, the trial judge also dismissed Fox’s counterclaims against Seymour, Blake and Thorp. This was on the basis that Fox had failed to show that their tweets caused, or were likely to cause, serious harm to his reputation “by making readers adversely change their minds about him”. He added that there were other probably causes of harm to his reputation including his political views and previous actions.
Fox appealed.
Court of Appeal
Giving judgment on 17 October 2025, the Court of Appeal judges (Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing, and Lord Justice Warby) found that the trial judge had erred in her approach to Fox’s counterclaims. Specifically, the trial judge improperly relied on third-party publications and specific incidents to infer that Fox had a bad reputation for being racist, contrary to established legal principles such as the rule in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd.
Actually, this rule prohibits reliance on third-party publications to mitigate damages. Therefore, the Court emphasised that Fox’s previous statements could not be used to prove bad reputation and the presumption of his good reputation should have been upheld.
Commenting, Lord Justice Warby said: “Having reflected on the arguments and revisited the written materials presented to us I have however concluded that the judge’s approach was in some respects wrong in law in ways that are material to the outcome.”
Subsequently, The Court of Appeal concluded that the tweets from Blake, Seymour and Thorp did cause serious reputational harm to Fox’s reputation. Moreover, it stated that his claim should be reconsidered at a retrial in the High Court on the defences of honest opinion and truth.
The Court of Appeal also dismissed Fox’s attempt to overturn the finding that he had libelled Blake and Seymour, but it did determine that the level of damages awarded by the trial judge exceeded the normal range. Also it noted that she did not have proper regard to the effect of the steps taken by Fox such as deleting the original defamatory tweets and publicly acknowledging them as “baseless insults”. Indeed, this was considered significant mitigation to the harm. Accordingly, damages were reduced by half, to £45,000.
Conclusion on Cases of Reputational Harm
Amongst other things, the Court of Appeal decision highlights the importance of the steps taken by a party after the publication of a defamatory statement.
Whilst, for example, a social media poster is often reluctant to backtrack from allegations made in their public posts particularly when involved in a contentious “spat”, their subsequent actions are in fact quite crucial.
The speed in which Fox removed the tweets and the fact that he acknowledged they were baseless placed him in a strong position with regard to damages. Importantly, it also did not prejudice his ability to later assert that his publications were not defamatory.
Notably, these mitigation actions were not treated as some form of admission that his publications were defamatory – he remained entitled to pursue his defences as he did. The case further emphasises the importance of those caught up in social media publication disputes to obtain speedy and objective legal advice.
For further information:
Contact:
Jay Joshi: [email protected]
Joshua Maurice: [email protected]
If you feel you have suffered reputational harm through social media
Disclaimer:
This article provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Civil procedure rules and case law can change. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your specific situation before acting.