Laurence Fox’s libel claim after he was called a racist on social media is set to face a retrial, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
In a decision on Friday, Lord Justice Warby said that the tweets caused serious harm to his reputation and his libel claim should be reconsidered at a retrial.
It comes after actor, who is now a right-wing political activist, lost his recent libel appeal over social media posts where he called two people “paedophiles” in a row over Black History Month.
Mr Fox was sued by now-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, “paedophiles” in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury’s to mark Black History Month in October 2020.
Mr Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called “a racist” by the men, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the “paedophile” tweets which led to the libel claims.
During the trial, Mr Seymour, who is Canadian, said he had faced “overwhelming and distressing” abuse after the tweet, while Mr Blake said the false suggestion that all gay men were paedophiles was a “trope as old as the hills”.
In two judgments in 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, and said Mr Fox should pay them £90,000 each in damages.
The judge dismissed Mr Fox’s counter claims against them and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism.
Mr Fox then challenged this decision at the Court of Appeal in London, where his lawyers described the previous judge’s decision as “plainly wrong”.
Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the men should be quashed because of “errors of approach” by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm.
The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the men, who, with Ms Thorp, opposed the appeal.
He said that in one of her rulings the judge “ignores the actual words used, or their all-important context”.
Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox’s appeal was “lacking in merit”.
She later said: “Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant’s tweets, for the reasons which she gave.
“There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.
“After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts.”
And in a decision on Friday, Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby ruled in Mr Fox’s favour on his counter-claims and the level of damages.
Lord Justice Warby said that the amount of damages Mr Fox was ordered to pay to Mr Blake and Mr Seymour was “manifestly excessive”, halving both sums to £45,000.
Lord Justice Warby said: “I am acutely aware of the need for this court to respect the function of the trial judge, and show due restraint.
“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.”
The Court of Appeal judge dismissed Mr Fox’s bid to overturn the finding that he had libelled Mr Blake and Mr Seymour.
