Laurence Fox granted retrial in libel case over social media ‘racist’ claim
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Laurence Fox will face a retrial in his libel claim after he was called a racist on social media.
In his ruling on Friday, Judge Warby said the tweets had caused serious damage to his reputation and the defamation claim should be reconsidered at a retrial.
It comes after the actor, now a right-wing political activist, lost a recent defamation appeal over social media posts in which he called two people “pedophiles” in a row for Black History Month.
Mr Fox was sued by current Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag performer Crystal over the exchange on X, formerly known as Twitter.
Mr Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul’s Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, “pedophiles” over Sainsbury’s decision to celebrate Black History Month in October 2020.
Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called a “racist” by both the men and broadcaster Nicola Thorp, who then responded with “pedophile” tweets that sparked defamation claims.
During the hearing, Canadian Mr Seymour said he faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse following the tweet, while Mr Blake said the false claim that all gay men were pedophiles was “a trope as old as the hills”.
Ms Justice Collins Rice ruled in favor of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in two 2024 judgments and said Mr Fox must pay them £90,000 in compensation.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox’s counterclaims against him and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
Mr Fox subsequently appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal in London; where his lawyers called the previous judge’s decision “manifestly wrong.”
Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the verdict finding Mr Fox had slandered the men should be overturned due to the judge’s “errors of approach”, including whether serious harm had been caused to Mr Blake and Mr Seymour.
The lawyer added that Ms Justice Collins Rice had awarded the wrong compensation for the men, who, along with Ms Thorp, opposed the appeal.
In one of his rulings he said the judge “ignored the actual words used or their very important context”.
Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox’s objection was “unfounded”.
He later said: “Whichever way we look at it, the judge was fully entitled, for the reasons he gave, to draw the substantive conclusions he did about the serious, real-world reputational impact of the appellant’s tweets.
“There was nothing factual or legal wrong in his analysis.
“After very careful and painstaking consideration, the judge was, unsurprisingly, unconvinced on the facts.”
In a judgment handed down on Friday, Judge Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Judge Warby ruled in Mr Fox’s favor on his counterclaims and the amount of damages.
Judge Warby said the amount of compensation Mr Fox was ordered to pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour was “manifestly excessive” and halved both sums to £45,000.
Judge Warby said: “I am acutely aware that this court must respect the role of the trial judge and exercise due restraint.
“After reflecting on the allegations and reviewing the written material available to us, I have concluded that the judge’s approach was wrong in law in some respects that were material to the outcome.”
The Court of Appeal judge rejected Mr Fox’s bid to overturn the finding that he had defamed Mr Blake and Mr Seymour.
