Noel Clarke ordered to pay at least £3 million in Guardian costs after libel defeat

Noel Clarke must pay at least £3 million of Guardian News and Media’s legal costs after losing his libel suit against the Guardian over articles in 2021 that alleged he used his power in the film and TV industry to prey upon and harass women, a High Court judge ruled. The decision comes after August’s ruling that the Guardian’s reporting was substantially true and in the public interest, and after Clarke’s six-week trial concluded with the court finding the allegations against him to be true in substance. Clarke, a former Doctor Who star known for Kidulthood, argued that the Guardian’s coverage damaged his career and reputation, a claim the court rejected as unfounded in light of the evidence presented at trial.

The ruling on costs was issued by Mrs Justice Steyn, who said Clarke must pay £3 million within 28 days, pending a detailed assessment into the total sum recoverable. The judge noted that Guardian News and Media’s total costs could be around £6 million, but she deemed the interim award to be appropriate and not excessive given the circumstances of the case. She emphasized that the defendant’s case had been pursued on the basis that the articles were not substantially true, a position she described as far-fetched and, in the court’s view, false. Guardian’s counsel Gavin Millar KC had asked the court to order interim payment of roughly half of the estimated costs, arguing that such a figure would be significantly lower than the norm in comparable cases. Clarke, who represented himself, challenged the amount as excessive and urged the court to consider his means. After the hearing, he told the court that costs should be proportionate to his finances as a single‑income household and not the resources of a large media group.

The image below shows Clarke during the period of controversy that led to the legal dispute.

Clarke’s financial and professional life has been deeply affected by the case. He told the court that the Guardian’s reporting and the subsequent libel action contributed to the collapse of his acting career, and he described how his family has been forced to endure financial strain. “I have lost my work, my savings, my legal team, my ability to support my family and much of my health,” he said, arguing that an onerous costs order would be financially devastating for his wife and children. He described remortgaging the family home to survive and urged that any costs or interim payments reflect his limited means as a single household. He also requested that payment be held pending any potential appeal.

In written submissions and during the hearing, Clarke argued that his case was not brought maliciously and asserted that the Guardian’s reporting, while disputed by him, had been the driver of an adverse impact on his life and career. The judge, however, signaled that, even if the Guardian’s reporting was contested, the libel claim had not succeeded in proving that the articles were not substantially true or in the public interest. The High Court’s August decision – finding the articles substantially true and that Clarke had engaged in inappropriate behavior, including unwanted sexual contact – formed the backdrop for the costs ruling.

Gavin Millar KC, representing Guardian News and Media, had contended that the overall costs were justified by the length of the trial and the breadth of the evidence presented, including testimony from multiple witnesses. He argued that the usual costs framework applied, under which the winner in a defamation case is entitled to be reimbursed by the losing party, but the precise amount would be determined after a detailed assessment. Clarke’s self-representation and the resignation of his legal team during the course of the proceedings were also part of the broader narrative described in the proceedings. Mrs Justice Steyn stated that if the parties could not reach an agreement on the remaining amount, a further hearing would determine whether all of the Guardian’s £6 million total cost was appropriate and justified.

The case has underscored the financial and personal toll that high-profile defamation actions can take, even when the claimant ultimately loses on the merits. Clarke’s career had already undergone a sharp downturn since the Guardian’s 2021 reporting, which included accounts from several women who had worked with him alleging misconduct. Clarke denied the allegations, but the court’s finding that the claims were substantially true and in the public interest formed the basis for the costs decision. The judgment leaves Clarke facing the prospect of a substantial bill that could influence future appeals or settlements as the parties navigate the detailed costs assessment process and any potential post-trial motions.

The broader cultural and industry context of the case centers on the responsibilities of media outlets to report on allegations of misconduct by public figures, as well as the limits of libel actions when claims are found to be substantially true or in the public interest. The Guardian’s reporting in 2021 and 2022, followed by the High Court’s findings, have continued to fuel discussions about accountability, media ethics, and the burdens of litigation for individuals across different sectors of culture and entertainment.