header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
09 February 2024
Issue: 8058 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 9 February 2024

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Defamation

Blake and another v Fox and another [2024] EWHC 146 (KB), [2024] All ER (D) 120 (Jan)

The King’s Bench Division ruled on reciprocal libel claims relating to some brief exchanges on the social media platform then known as Twitter. The defendant actor and leader of the Remain Party had called for a boycott of a supermarket over an employee diversity and inclusion policy. The claimants had responded by calling the defendant a racist, and he had then proceeded to call each of them a paedophile. Each of the parties argued that no ‘serious harm’ could have been attributed to their own tweet(s), and that the test in s 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 had not been passed. The burden laid on the party who alleged defamation in each case to establish that the test had been passed and, if it had not, then that was the end of the matter. The court held, among other things, that: (i) the defendant’s labelling of the claimants as paedophiles was, on the evidence,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll