Noel Clarke’s libel trial against the Guardian publisher due in March 2025
The 48-year-old is suing Guardian News and Media over a series of articles.
![Noel Clarke leaves the Royal Courts of Justice (Lucy North/PA)](https://static.independent.co.uk/2024/07/15/16/c463191467507822406a5789ae3c0f05Y29udGVudHNlYXJjaGFwaSwxNzIxMTQxODU5-2.74316659.jpg)
Support truly
independent journalism
Our mission is to deliver unbiased, fact-based reporting that holds power to account and exposes the truth.
Whether $5 or $50, every contribution counts.
Support us to deliver journalism without an agenda.
![Louise Thomas](https://static.independent.co.uk/static-assets/support-us/louise-thomas.png)
Louise Thomas
Editor
Actor Noel Clarke’s libel claim against the Guardian newspaper’s publisher is set to go to trial in 2025 for up to six weeks, the High Court has heard.
The 48-year-old is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over a series of articles, including one from April 2021 which said 20 women who knew Mr Clarke in a professional capacity had come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct.
In a statement at the time he “vehemently” denied “any sexual misconduct or criminal wrongdoing”.
The Doctor Who actor is bringing a libel and data protection claim against the publisher and is seeking £10 million in special damages, with further damages expected to be sought over loss of future earnings.
GNM is defending the claim on the grounds of truth and public interest.
At a preliminary hearing on Monday, lawyers for GNM said that the full trial of the claims is due to start in March 2025.
Ben Gallop, for the publisher, said in written submissions: “There are substantial disputes of fact which will require a full six-week trial to determine, at which the parties between them expect to call the oral evidence of around 45 witnesses.”
During a hearing in March, the High Court in London was told that some of the women who made the disputed allegations against Mr Clarke could give evidence.
In a judgment last year, Mr Justice Johnson said that seven of the articles “mean that there are strong grounds to believe that the claimant is guilty of various forms of sexual harassment” with the eighth meaning “grounds to investigate”.
The judge also ruled all of the articles could be defamatory, which had not been disputed by GNM over seven of the pieces.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.