Vince v Tice [2026] EWCA Civ 844
The Court of Appeal has today dismissed an appeal by green energy entrepreneur Dale Vince against the ruling on opinion and meaning in his libel claim against deputy Reform Party leader Richard Tice MP over a tweet about Hamas.
At one point during an interview with Times Radio in October 2023, in an exchange about the 7 October 2023 attacks, Mr Vince was asked if a terrorist attack by Hamas amounted to Palestine defending itself. He responded that “I think one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”, but later stated “I don’t support what they [Hamas] did”. In March 2024, political website Guido Fawkes published an article referencing the first comment and showing a video of that part of the interview, and posted a tweet about it. Mr Tice quote-tweeted the Guido Fawkes tweet, adding his own words: “So major Labour donor is pro the murderous antisemitic Hamas… Mmmm.” Mr Vince brought a claim for libel.
At a preliminary issues trial, Mr Justice Pepperall found that the tweet meant that Mr Vince “supports the murderous and antisemitic terrorist organisation Hamas” and that this was a statement of opinion (not fact), with the basis for that opinion indicated. The tweet was held to be defamatory at common law. At the same hearing, in a claim against the editor of the Guido Fawkes website, the Guido Fawkes article had been found to convey a defamatory factual meaning.
Mr Vince appealed on the grounds that (1) the judge had wrongly classified the statement as opinion rather than fact, and (2) even if opinion, defamatory factual imputations were also conveyed.
The appeal was dismissed. Warby LJ gave the leading judgment, with Lewison and Coulson LJJ agreeing.
He stated that it was essential to resolving the appeal to understand how the case was presented to and understood by the Judge at the TPI.
On ground one, the issue as presented to and decided by the Judge was the meaning of Mr Tice’s own words, in the context of the quote-tweet, rather than then entire tweet. On this issue, the judge had correctly applied the law and reached a legitimate conclusion.
On ground two, Mr Vince argued that Mr Tice had repeated Guido Fawkes’ factual allegations in the latter’s tweet and article. However, the Court held, this was a new argument, was inconsistent with the way the case was presented to the Judge and to the pleaded case, and it would not be just to allow it at this late stage.
In addition to the judgment, the Court has also published a Press Summary of the decision.
5RB’s Richard Munden, instructed by Patron Law, appeared for Mr Tice on the appeal, led by David Price KC (Richard having appeared alone, instructed by Wedlake Bell, at the TPI).
William Bennett KC and Ben Hamer, instructed by Brett Wilson, appeared for Mr Vince at the TPI and on appeal.
