Simon Blake & Anor v Laurence Fox

Libel damages are restorative, not punitive. Their assessment is broad, holistic and intensely fact-specific. The court should consider the gravity of the allegation, the extent of publication, reputational harm, personal distress and the need for public vindication. Comparator awards provide guidance only.

A final injunction is discretionary. It may be granted where the evidence establishes a real risk of repetition and the order is necessary and proportionate, having regard to the parties’ competing rights. An order requiring publication of a judgment summary is also discretionary and must be necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting reputation.

The claimants had succeeded in their defamation claims arising from tweets by the defendant describing each of them as a paedophile. The liability judgment, Blake & Seymour v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB), had determined that the allegations were baseless and indefensible.

This judgment concerned remedies. Each claimant sought damages, an injunction restraining repetition of the same or similar allegations, and an order requiring publication of a summary of the judgment. The central issues were the proper assessment of compensatory damages, whether repetition posed a sufficient risk to justify injunctive relief, and whether compulsory publication was necessary and proportionate.

1. Damages. The court awarded each claimant £90,000. The award was exclusively compensatory. It reflected the exceptional gravity of the allegation, mass publication and percolation, the claimants’ particular reputational vulnerability, the distress and humiliation caused, the reputational jeopardy actually sustained, and the need for complete vindication. The assessment remained broad, holistic and intensely fact-specific. Comparator cases were useful only as general guidance.
2. The court rejected any suggestion that the claimants had materially provoked the libels or that their resilience, public responses or support networks removed the relevant harm. Subsequent controversy involving Mr Seymour had to be assessed cautiously: the original libel did not cause that controversy in a straight line, but it increased his vulnerability to reputational harm of that nature.
3. Injunction. The court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from repeating the same or similar allegations. The remedy was discretionary, but the evidence established a real risk of repetition. Relevant matters included the defendant’s impulsive and theatrical style of public commentary, disregard for objective factuality, experimentation with extreme free-speech positions, continuing animus towards the claimants, and a recent tweet materially renewing the association between Mr Seymour and paedophilia. The injunction was necessary and proportionate. It did not prevent lawful public debate about drag performance or the claimants.
4. Publication of judgment summary. The application for compulsory publication was refused. The fact of success and the damages award had already received wide publicity. A further order risked providing an occasion for renewed humiliation or inaccurate commentary, and the statutory power was not a general mechanism for correcting all inaccurate reporting of the judgment.

The judgment itself records that liability had previously been determined in favour of the claimants in Blake & Seymour v Fox [2024] EWHC 146 (KB). This judgment decided the consequential remedies.