High Court finds Soho Theatre’s press statement about comedian, Paul Currie was defamatory

In a Judgment handed down by His Honour Mr Justice Nicklin in the High Court on 3 April 2025, it has been found that Soho Theatre’s press statement about our Client, Paul Currie, was defamatory at common law.

Parties Involved

Mr Currie, who is the Claimant in these proceedings, is an international award-winning comedian from Northern Ireland who has established a reputation as an uncompromising alternative comedian in the UK, Ireland, Australia and Europe. The Defendant, Soho Theatre Company Ltd runs a theatre at 21 Dean Street, London where Mr Currie performed his show “Shtoom” on successive nights in February 2024.

Brief Background

The claim stems from events that occurred at the conclusion of Mr. Currie’s performance at the Soho Theatre on 10 February 2024. During the show, Mr. Currie raised a Ukrainian flag, prompting applause from the audience. He then displayed a Palestinian flag, which was met with applause from all but two individuals in the audience. When Mr. Currie asked why they had not joined in the applause, they responded by expressing their hatred of the flag and what it represented. In response, Mr. Currie firmly instructed them to leave the show. Following this, the two individuals contacted the Campaign Against Antisemitism, claiming that the incident amounted to antisemitism. At no point did Mr. Currie know the race or religion of the audience members involved.

The Defamatory Statement

On 12 February 2025, Soho Theatre published a press statement on its website and on X, which Mr Currie contended had defamed him. He issued a claim for defamation at the High Court on 12 July 2024.

Hearing and Outcome

A preliminary trial took place on 3 April 2025 before His Honour Mr Justice Nicklin in the High Court to determine the meaning of the press statement published by Soho Theatre. Mr Currie, who is represented by Zillur Rahman of Rahman Lowe Solicitors, was represented at the hearing by Counsel, David Hirst of 5RB Chambers.

Mr Justice Nicklin found that the meaning of the press statement is as follows:

“Following the end of the Claimant’s show, the Claimant had verbally abused Jewish members of the audience and aggressively demanded that they leave the theatre and there were grounds to investigate whether by so doing the Claimant had committed a criminal offence.

This conduct was:

(a)   intimidating and antisemitic;
(b)   appalling and unacceptable;
(c)   inconsistent with the values of Soho Theatre, and justified the theatre in refusing to allow the Claimant the opportunity to perform at the Soho Theatre in the future.

The first sentence was an allegation of fact that is defamatory of the Claimant at common law. The balance (underlined) is an expression of opinion. The entire meaning is defamatory of the Claimant at common law”.

The Court therefore found that the words complained of by Mr Currie, were defamatory at common law, which Soho Theatre accepted. Soho Theatre will now be expected to file a defence and the claim will proceed to the main hearing.

Notes to Editor:

Our extensive experience of acting in high profile defamation cases means that we are particularly well placed to advise clients whose case may reach the public eye, and to advise on associated matters such as reputation management. Zillur Rahman was recently featured as The Times Lawyer of the Week for winning substantial damages in another libel claim. We are ranked as a ‘Leading Firm’ in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners independent guides to the UK Legal Profession.

For further information or to discuss a potential claim, please contact us on 020 3950 5234 or info@rllaw.co.uk.

04 April 2025