On Tuesday, September 23, 2025, the legal saga between actor Noel Clarke and the publisher of The Guardian newspaper reached a decisive and costly milestone. After a bruising legal battle that put both reputations and livelihoods on the line, a High Court judge ordered Clarke to pay at least £3 million of the publisher’s legal costs, marking a dramatic conclusion to a case that has gripped the British media and entertainment industries for years.
The dispute began in April 2021, when The Guardian published a series of articles and a podcast detailing allegations from 20 women who had worked professionally with Clarke. The stories accused the Doctor Who and Kidulthood star of harassment and sexually inappropriate behavior, claims Clarke vehemently denied from the outset. According to BBC News, Clarke’s lawyers at the time accused the newspaper of acting as “judge, jury and executioner” over his career, which, by all accounts, collapsed almost overnight following the revelations.
Clarke responded by suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) for libel over seven articles and the podcast, seeking to clear his name and recover damages for what he described as a catastrophic blow to his livelihood. The stakes were high: Clarke initially sought £10 million in damages, only to raise that figure to £40 million and then a staggering £70 million as the case progressed, as reported by STV News and National World.
GNM, for its part, stood firmly by its reporting, defending the stories as both substantially true and in the public interest. The legal process was exhaustive. Gavin Millar KC, representing GNM, told the court that the publisher’s legal team had to review some 40,000 documents, including hours of audio recordings and transcripts, in preparing their defense. He pointed out that Clarke’s approach to the litigation—especially his pursuit of conspiracy allegations against both GNM and several of his accusers—had significantly increased the complexity and cost of the proceedings. “Although it is not necessary for GNM to show that Clarke’s unreasonable conduct increased its costs, in fact the conspiracy allegation inevitably massively increased the scale and costs of the litigation by giving rise to a whole new un-pleaded line of attack against witnesses and third parties,” Millar wrote in submissions cited by National World.
In August 2025, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Clarke’s libel claim, finding that The Guardian had succeeded in defending its stories on the grounds of truth and public interest. Her assessment of Clarke as a witness was scathing. She described him as “not a credible or reliable witness,” highlighting a “general pattern of only being prepared to admit that which was established by documentary evidence.” The judge further stated, “The claimant maintained a far-fetched and indeed a false case that the articles were not substantially true, by pursuing allegations of dishonesty and bad faith against almost all of the defendant’s truth witnesses.”
At Tuesday’s hearing, the focus shifted to costs. GNM’s legal bill exceeded £6 million, but the publisher asked for half—£3 million—as an interim payment, which Millar argued was “significantly less” than the typical 75%-80% requested in such cases. Mrs Justice Steyn agreed, ruling, “It seems to me that the sum of £3 million sought by the defendant is appropriate and no more than what ought to be reasonably ordered in this case. It is substantially lower than the defendant’s likely level of recovery on detailed assessment and so in my judgment, it does allow for a suitably wide margin of error.” Clarke was ordered to pay the sum within 28 days, ahead of a detailed assessment that could see him liable for even more, depending on the outcome.
For Clarke, the judgment was devastating, both professionally and personally. Representing himself at the hearing after his legal team resigned due to lack of funds, Clarke became visibly emotional. He told the court, “I have lost my work, my savings, my legal team, my ability to support my family and much of my health.” He described how his family had remortgaged their home just to make ends meet and pleaded for the court to consider the “human reality” of the proceedings. “Any costs or interim payments must be proportionate to my means as a single household, not the unlimited resources of a major media conglomerate,” he said, warning, “A crushing order would not just punish me, it would punish my children and wife, and they do not deserve that.”
Clarke also took issue with the size of the costs order, calling it “excessive,” “inflated,” and “caused by their own choices.” He insisted, “I have not been vexatious and I have not tried to play games with the court.” In a sign of just how dire his situation had become, Clarke revealed he had used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool, to help prepare his legal submissions.
Despite his pleas, Mrs Justice Steyn declined to delay payment pending any appeal, though she noted that if Clarke and GNM could not agree on the final sum, a court would later assess whether the full £6 million bill was justified. The judge’s ruling underscores the principle that the losing party in such a trial typically pays the winner’s costs, a rule designed to discourage frivolous or unfounded litigation.
Clarke’s downfall has been swift and public. Once celebrated for his role as Mickey Smith in Doctor Who and as the creative force behind Kidulthood, he now faces financial ruin and a tarnished reputation. According to BBC News, his career in film and television has collapsed since the original allegations surfaced in 2021, and he remains adamant in his denial of any wrongdoing.
For The Guardian, the outcome represents a vindication of its reporting and a reaffirmation of the importance of investigative journalism in holding powerful figures to account. The case also highlights the immense financial and personal risks involved in pursuing or defending high-profile libel claims in the UK’s courts, where the costs can be staggering and the stakes, quite literally, life-changing.
As the dust settles on this high-profile case, both sides are left to reckon with the consequences. For Clarke, the financial and personal toll is immense; for The Guardian, the ruling stands as a testament to the rigors of legal scrutiny and the enduring value of public interest journalism.
