Schofield v Politicalite Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 543 (KB)
Simon Schofield, an award-winning theatrical producer, actor, and creative director, brought a claim against Politicalite Limited and its founder, Jordan James Kendall. Schofield is well-known for his roles in various West End productions and for founding The 2 Faces Theatre CIC and Sisco Entertainment Ltd. The defendants published an article on their website, Politicalite, alleging that Schofield was involved in grooming children and young people. These allegations were untrue and seriously defamatory.
The article, published on 24 September 2022, was shared multiple times on social media. Despite attempts by Schofield’s solicitors to resolve the matter amicably, the defendants refused to retract the article and continued to publish it, leading to significant distress and reputational damage for Schofield.
The defendants’ failed to engage. They did not appear or provide any defence at any stage of the proceedings. Despite being notified of the remedies hearing and informed that the court would likely proceed in their absence if they failed to attend, the defendants did not attend the hearing and were not represented.
The claimant first complained to the defendants about the article in a letter from his solicitors sent on 8 June 2023. The defendants responded dismissively and abusively, refusing to take the article down and belittling the claimant’s concerns. The defendants’ failure to engage continued throughout the legal process. On 21 August 2023, the deadline for the defendants to file an acknowledgment of service or defence passed without them filing any acknowledgment or defence. On 6 September 2023, the claimant applied for default judgment. On 29 November 2023, Nicklin J granted the claimant judgment in default and gave directions for the remedies hearing.
The claimant sought remedies for libel, malicious falsehood, and misuse of private information. The article in question was published on 24 September 2022 and was shared multiple times on social media. Despite attempts by Schofield’s solicitors to resolve the matter amicably, the defendants refused to retract the article and continued to publish it, leading to significant distress and reputational damage for Schofield.
The legal principles applicable in this case include the Defamation Act 2013, which governs claims for libel and malicious falsehood. The court must assess damages based on the claimant’s unchallenged particulars of claim, including the gravity of the defamation, the extent of its publication, and the injury to the claimant’s feelings and reputation. Additionally, the principles for assessing damages in misuse of private information were considered, focusing on the distress and loss of dignity caused by the wrongful disclosure.
Judge’s Reasoning
Gravity of the Defamation:
The judge emphasised the seriousness of the defamatory allegations, which imputed that the claimant was guilty of complicity in child grooming and had actively used his position to manipulate, exploit, or abuse children and young people. This was considered inherently very serious and at the upper end of the scale of gravity. The judge noted that the allegations struck at the claimant’s reputation generally as well as his professional reputation and standing within the theatre and entertainment industry. The defamatory nature of the allegations was compounded by the fact that they were published on a popular and influential online news platform, which increased their potential to cause harm.
Extent of Publication:
The judge considered the extent of publication, including the number of shares and views on social media, and the visibility of the article on the defendants’ website. The primary readership of the article was estimated to be in the region of 20,000-30,000 readers, with a significant percolation effect through the internet. The judge also took into account the fact that the article was shared multiple times on social media, which further amplified its reach and impact. The widespread dissemination of the defamatory allegations contributed to the serious harm caused to the claimant’s reputation. The article was shared from the website 4,300 times, and the defendants’ Twitter account, which had about 18,300 followers, shared the article on at least three separate occasions. The first tweet sharing the article had been commented on 9 times, retweeted 60 times, and liked 96 times. The second tweet had been commented on 6 times, retweeted 31 times, liked 51 times, and had an impression status of 6,251. The third tweet had been viewed 2,528 times, retweeted twice, and liked 11 times.
Evidence of Harm:
The claimant provided compelling evidence of the distress and financial losses suffered as a result of the publication. The judge noted the severe degree of distress caused to the claimant, the impact on his family and friends, and the damage to his business relationships. The claimant’s evidence included details of the financial losses incurred as a result of the defamatory publication, such as the loss of funding from Live Nation and the cancellation of a production booked with Celebrity Cruises. The judge also considered the claimant’s testimony about the emotional toll of the defamatory allegations, including the impact on his mental health and personal relationships. The claimant described the severe distress caused by the allegations, which led him to seek professional help from a therapist. He also mentioned the impact on his business relationships, including the loss of financial backing from Live Nation for “The Barricade Boys,” estimated at £55,000, and the loss of a contract with Celebrity Cruises worth $4,000.
Aggravating Factors:
The judge highlighted the aggravating conduct of the defendants, including their failure to contact the claimant prior to publication, their abusive responses to pre-action correspondence, and their threats to republish the article. This conduct exacerbated the claimant’s distress and fear of a resurgence of the allegations. The judge found that the defendants’ behaviour demonstrated a reckless disregard for the truth and a malicious intent to harm the claimant’s reputation. The defendants’ refusal to engage with the legal process and their repeated publication of the defamatory allegations further aggravated the harm caused to the claimant.
Assessment of Damages:
The judge awarded the claimant £90,000 in damages to compensate for the injury to reputation, feelings, and to ensure adequate vindication. The award was based on the gravity of the defamatory allegations, the extent of publication, the evidence of harm, and the aggravating conduct of the defendants. The judge emphasised that the damages were intended to provide a measure of vindication for the claimant and to compensate for the distress and humiliation caused by the defamatory publication. The award was also intended to serve as a deterrent to the defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
Injunction:
The judge granted an injunction to prevent further publication of the defamatory article, considering the real prospect that the defendants would republish the allegations. The injunction was deemed necessary and proportionate to protect the claimant’s reputation. The judge noted that the defendants had already republished the article once in response to the service of the claim and had threatened to do so again. The injunction was therefore necessary to prevent further harm to the claimant’s reputation and to ensure that the defamatory allegations were not disseminated further.
Publication of a Summary of the Judgment:
The judge ordered the defendants to publish a summary of the judgment on their website and social media, to assist the claimant in repairing the damage to his reputation and obtaining vindication. The judge found that the publication of a summary of the judgment was a proportionate and necessary measure to ensure that the claimant’s reputation was restored and that the defamatory allegations were publicly refuted. The summary was intended to reach the same audience that had been exposed to the defamatory publication and to provide a clear and unequivocal statement of the court’s findings.
Costs:
The judge awarded the claimant’s costs, summarily assessed at £35,000, to be paid by the defendants. The judge found that the claimant was entitled to recover his legal costs as the successful party in the litigation. The costs were assessed on a summary basis to ensure that they were reasonable and proportionate. The judge also noted that the defendants’ conduct in failing to engage with the legal process and their abusive responses to pre-action correspondence had contributed to the costs incurred by the claimant.