Analysis of the quantum judgment in Laurence Fox libel case

Laurence Fox ordered to pay £90,000 damages each to Simon Blake and Colin Seymour.

Image courtesy of George Ciobra

Interesting parts / key takeaways from the judgment:

Quantum

1. [16] Gravity. Being accused of being a paedophile is “intrinsically, an exceptionally grave and cruel allegation. That is because of the exceptional repugnance with which paedophiles are regarded in our society, and because of the exceptionally adhesive and ‘non-incredible’ quality of this particular allegation. It is a particularly powerful reputational pollutant.”

2. [17] Extent of publication. There was mass publication given Fox’s large Twitter following with evidence of “substantial percolation” on social media, which was picked up by national edited media. 

3. [18] The Claimants’ personal circumstances were relevant factors, in particular, their national profile on LGBTQ+ issues and the engagement of safeguarding issues. 

4. [19] Fox subjected the claimants to a “shocking and humiliating public ordeal.” He had, out of the blue, "attached one of the stickiest and most toxic of words in the English language to them.”

5. [21] Fox's counsel's argument that the claimants trivialised or exploited the ordeal for personal gain, or brought the claims for cynical or political motives, was dismissed. The court rejected suggestions that the claimants invited the situation or sought to harm Fox for personal benefit.

6. [33] Fox was fortunate given that the claimants’ lives or prospects were not ruined, otherwise “the award of damages could well have been a multiple of the figure I have decided upon.” 

Injunction 

1. The claimants are legally entitled not to have Fox repeat the same or similar allegations. Fox had not offered undertakings or agreed informally not to repeat the libel. Fox was said to exercise his rights of public free speech in two main ways.

2. [39] The first by “impulsiveness, theatricality, a disregard for or uninterest in impact on others, and an unfastidiousness about objective factuality as a potential restraint on his commentary and claims…”

3. [40] The second is Fox’s “public utterances might be recognised as a more systematic programme for experimenting with the extreme boundaries of free speech or what he called ‘free speech absolutism’.”

4.  [56] If further or similar allegations are published, Fox may be found guilty of contempt of court. The injunction was necessary because of his “track record of public utterances.”

Enforced publication of judgment summary on Twitter (X)

1. The court declined compulsory publication due to widespread coverage of the libel claim and expected publicity of damages. Additional publication risked further harm to the claimants and exceeded the court's authority to correct reporting inaccuracies; the judgment summary suffices as a public headline.

Analysis of the quantum judgment in Laurence Fox libel case