Which Schofield Is It?

Imagine being accused of being a paedophile because you share the same surname as another high-profile individual receiving media attention, the subject matter of which you had no involvement in. That is essentially what happened in the case of Schofield v Politicalite Ltd and another [2024].

The news coverage surrounding Philip Schofield’s conduct will be well known to most people and the writer makes no comment/assertions on Philip Schofield’s conduct or the matters he has been accused of. The Politicalite case however was to do with an accusation made by the Defendants against Simon Schofield, who is an award-winning theatrical producer, actor, and creative director, well known for such West End Productions as the Sound of Music and Les Miserables. Politicalite publishes a website focussing on news and opinion for those in the entertainment and media industries. The Second Defendant, Mr Kendall, is the sole director and Editor-in-Chief of Politicalite.

Politicalite published an article about the Claimant titled “EXCLUSIVE: Phillip Schofield and best pal Simon ‘groomed’ [X], claim Telly insiders”. X was a student at a theatre company operated by the Claimant in the North West of England. The Claimant’s only relation to Philip Schofield was that he had worked with him previously and Philip Schofield was a patron of the theatre company, which essentially meant that he delivered a few seminars to the students.

The Defendants took no part in the proceedings. When challenged by the Claimant’s representative pre-action, Mr Kendall responded by email with remarks such as ‘see you in court’ and ‘Nonce Enablers’. The Court found the natural and ordinary meaning of the article to be:

Court’s decision

As the Defendants took no active part in the proceedings, the Claimant was awarded judgment in default and a hearing was listed to assess damages. Due to the judgment in default, the Defendants were found liable for defamation, malicious falsehood and misuse of private information.

Mrs Justice Steyn DBE does a very helpful summary of the case law in respect of assessing damages for these heads of terms in her judgment. In doing so she considered whether it was appropriate to award damages for each individual head of claim or to assess it globally. In choosing to assess the damages globally, she stated that she did so as there was considerable overlap between the facts supporting the pleaded case for each of the heads of claim.

The judge took into account the fact that the allegations were extremely serious/damaging, the effect of percolation of the allegations due to its publication on the internet, the likely reach that the article would have had, the fact that the article, even once taken down is still likely to be accessible through pages that have republished the content and the fact that the Claimant had lost several very lucrative contracts as a result of the allegations.

The judge also felt compelled to award aggravated damages as a result of the fact that the Defendants republished the article a few days after taking it down in response to the Claimant’s requests for an amicable resolution to the matter, as well as the hurtful response by Mr Kendall, such as ‘Nonce Enabler’.

The judge awarded the Claimant £90,000 in addition to legal costs of £35,000, an injunction against further publication of the article, and an order requiring the Defendants to publish a summary of the judgment in the case.