Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Laurence Fox’s The Court of Appeal has ruled that a defamation claim will be reconsidered after he was called a racist on social media.
In a ruling on Friday, Lord Justice Warby said the tweets had caused serious damage to his reputation and his defamation claim should be reconsidered.
This comes after the actor, now a right-wing political activist, recently lost his defamation appeal social media Post where he consecutively called two people “pedophiles” black History Month,
Mr Fox has now been sued by Stonewall chief executive Simon Blake and drag artist 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” in an exchange about Sainsbury’s decision to celebrate Black History Month in October 2020.
Mr Fox called for a supermarket boycott and was branded a “racist” by the public and the broadcaster Nicola ThorpeThis was before he responded to “pedophile” tweets, which led to defamation claims.
During the trial, Mr Seymour, who is Canadian, said he faced “enormous and disturbing” abuse after the tweet, while Mr Blake said the false suggestion that all gay men were pedophiles was “as old as the hills”.
In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favor of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, and said Mr Fox should pay each £90,000 in damages.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox’s counterclaims against him and Ms Thorpe over tweets accusing them of racism.
Mr Fox then challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal in London, where his lawyers described the previous judge’s decision as “clearly wrong”.
Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the verdict which found Mr Fox had humiliated the men should be quashed because of the judge’s “errors of approach”, including whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour had suffered serious harm.
The barrister said Mrs Justice Collins Rice had unfairly awarded damages to those who opposed the appeal along with Ms Thorpe.
He said that in one of his rulings the judge “ignores the actual words used, or their all-important context”.
Adrienne Page Casey, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorpe, said in written submissions that Mr Fox’s appeal “lacked merit”.
She later said: “Regardless of how one looks at it, the judge had every right to reach the factual findings that he did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the Appellant’s tweets, for the reasons he gave.
“There was nothing wrong with his analysis of the facts or the law.
“After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judges, surprisingly, did not agree on the facts.”
And in a judgment on Friday, Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elizabeth Lang and Lord Justice Warby ruled in Mr Fox’s favor on his counter-claims and the level of damages.
Lord Justice Warby said the damages Mr Fox was ordered to pay to Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were “manifestly excessive”, halving both sums to £45,000.
Lord Justice Warby said: “I am keenly aware of the need for this court to respect the function of the trial judge and show appropriate restraint.
“After considering the arguments and looking again at the written material presented to us I conclude that the judge’s approach was wrong in law in some respects which are material to the outcome.”
An Appeal Court judge rejected Mr Fox’s attempt to overturn the finding that he had defamed Mr Blake and Mr Seymour.