Inforrm reported on a large number of defamation cases from around the world in 2025. Following a now established tradition, with our widely read posts on 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 defamation cases, we present our own eccentric selection of legally and factually interesting cases from England, Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Florida from the past year.1. Noel Clarke v Guardian News and Media [2025] EWHC 2193 (KB)
Actor and director Noel Clarke sued the Guardian over a series of articles published in April 2021 detailing allegations of sexual misconduct by more than 20 women. There was a six-week trial from March to April 2025 before Steyn J. In a 224 page judgment handed down on 22 August 2025, the Judge comprehensively dismissed the claim finding that the Guardian had established its defences of truth and public interest. The Judge concluded that Mr Clarke was “not a credible or reliable witness”. Mr Clarke was ordered to pay the costs, with a payment of £3 million on account ([2025] EWHC 2575 (KB)). We had an Inforrm post about the judgment.
2. Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321
In this defamation case three individuals sued actor Laurence Fox after he had called them “paedophiles” in Twitter posts following their posts calling him a racist. He counterclaimed for defamation over the allegation of racism. After a full trial Collins Rice J held that the defendant’s tweets were likely to cause serious harm to the claimants’ reputations but that the defendant had not established that the claimant’s tweet has cause his reputation serious harm. [2024] EWHC 146 (KB). After a subsequent hearing the judge awarded each claimant damages of £90,000 each. The Court of Appeal set aside the dismissal of Mr Fox’s counterclaims and ordered a retrial on the defences of honest opinion and truth. The Court held that judge had erred in her approach by improperly relying on third-party publications to infer that Fox already had a bad reputation. Mr Fox’s appeal on liability was dismissed but the damages were reduced to £45,000 each. There was a 5RB case comment.
3. Hegab v The Spectator [2025] EWHC 2043 (KB)
This was a defamation claim by YouTube content creator Mohammed Hegab against The Spectator and journalist Douglas Murray concerning street conflict in Leicester in 2022 between groups of largely young male Muslims and Hindus. The article said that the claimant travelled to Leicester and made an inflammatory speech and engaged in street agitation. It also referred to similar activity by the claimant at an anti-Israel protest in London. Johnson J found that the article made defamatory allegations against the claimant but that it did not cause serious harm to his reputation. The evidence of serious harm was “confected”. Further, the Judge concluded that the allegation was substantially true. The claimant’s evidence was described as being “worthless”. The claim was dismissed. On 24 October 2025 the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s application for permission to appeal – although the judge’s approach to serious harm was arguably wrong he could not challenge the judge’s cogent and proper reasoning on truth .
4. Gillespie & MacMillan v Wardrop [2025] CSOH 46. (Scotland)
This was a claim brought in the Court of Session over statements made by the defender after he stepped down as director of St Mirren Football Club. Lord Clark held that the statements were defamatory and that the defence of truth under s.5 of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021 failed but that the defence of publication on a matter of public interest under s.6 succeeded. The statements made were in the public interest and were reasonably held. The defender took reasonable steps to verify. The defence of honest opinion was also established. This was the first reported consideration of the provisions of the 2021 Act which made extensive changes to the law of defamation in Scotland. Comments on the case can be found here and here.
5. Sands v Bond & Ors, Operating as “Tattle Life” [2023] NIKB 134 (anonymity lifted, 13 June 2025)(Northern Ireland)
Neil and Donna Sands, a married couple of entrepreneurs living in County Antrim, discovered that an extensive thread existed on Tattle Life, focusing entirely on them. They sued the anonymous operators of this gossip forum for defamatory and harassing online commentary posted over several years. The Northern Ireland High Court awarded £300,000 in libel damages. In June 2025, after reporting restrictions were lifted, the court ordered the identity of the formerly anonymous publisher to be revealed: Sebastian Bond, a UK national behind the Tattle Life site and two companies. Additional enforcement measures (including worldwide asset freezing orders exceeding £1.8 million) were also granted. The case is a legal milestone for the content creators, influencers and celebrities who have been persistently harassed online in forums of this kind. We had an Inforrm post about the case.
6. Gerry Adams v BBC (Dublin High Court, Jury, 30 May 2025)(Ireland)
The former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams sued the BBC in the High Court in Dublin over a 2016 Spotlight programme and accompanying online article wrongly which suggested that Mr Adams had sanctioned the 2006 murder of Denis Donaldson, a former Sinn Féin official turned British agent. The BBC did not plead truth but unsuccessfully relied on the defence of “fair and reasonable publication in the public interest”. After a 21 day trial and 7 hours of deliberations, the jury awarded Mr Adams €100,000 defamation damages. The case was widely reported in the Irish and UK media including by the Irish Times, the BBC and the Guardian.
7. Reynolds v Higgins [2025] WASC 345 (Australia)
This was a defamation claim by former Defence Minister and Senator Linda Reynolds against former staffer Brittany Higgins in August 2025. The case concerned social media posts published in January 2022 and July 2023 relating to Reynolds’ handling of Higgins’ allegation that she had been raped by a colleague in Reynolds’ ministerial office. The court rejected Reynolds’ conspiracy theory but found that two of the three posts were defamatory and that Higgins could not establish defences of truth or honest opinionTottle J awarded Aus$315,000 in damages . There was a BBC report on the judgment which is an element of what has been described as one of the biggest Australian political scandals of our time. Ms Higgins was subsequently declared bankrupt.
8. Talley’s Group Limited v Television New Zealand Limited [2025] NZHC 4006 (New Zealand)
Food processor Talley’s Group brought a defamation action against Television New Zealand and reporter Thomas Mead. The action arose out of six television broadcasts and six online stories from 2021-2022 investigating health and safety issues at Talley’s operations. Jagose J held that one broadcast meant that an insufficiency in emergency stop buttons at Talley’s Ashburton site was known to, and raised by workers with management but not addressed. However, Talley’s failed to prove pecuniary loss as required, and TVNZ’s reporting constituted “responsible communication on a matter of public interest. Steven Price has a post about the decision “Talley’s Defamation Decision Looks Strange to Me”
9. Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange v Blackwell (2025 ONSC 4678)(Canada)
Canadian AIDS Treatment Information Exchange (CATIE) and eight of its its staff members sued the author of a website for defamation. The defendant had conducted a malicious online campaign accusing CATIE staff of “grooming” children and being “pedophiles,” perpetuating harmful stereotypes linking the 2SLGBTQIA+ community to pedophilia. In one of the largest defamation awards in Canadian history, McVey J in the Ontario Superior Court awarded a total of CA$1.75 million in damages to the plaintffs: CA$1.25 million in general damages, CA$250,000 in aggravated damages, and CA$250,000 in punitive damages, along with a permanent injunction. CATIE described this as a “landmark ruling”. There was a report in the Law Times News. This was the fifth judgment in two years in Canada against individuals individuals who have published defamatory and hateful slurs falsely alleging members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community are pedophiles or are engaged in sexual “grooming” of children.
10. Trump v BBC (United States District Court, Southern District of Florida)(US).
Finally, the most absurd defamation case of the year. The President of the United States suing the BBC for $10 billion [pdf] in a jurisdiction where the programme complained of was not broadcast and over an edit which arguably accurately reflected the overall message of his speech. And in circumstances where he has little realistic chance of overcoming the hurdles which US public figures face in defamation actions. As the Inforrm post on the case put it: this looks like a “total loser” and a SLAPP. More entertainment to come from this source in 2026.
Please add additional cases or analysis via the comments. We would like to thank readers for their contributions, reposting and reading of this series to date
Actually, in the Talley’s case (case #8, New Zealand), the judge found that most of the pleaded meanings were not established. If anyone feels inclined to read the case, I’d be very interested in views on those findings. I’ve blogged on the case at MediaLawJournal.co.nz.
Thank you for this. We have added a link to your post