Take 10 - 20 February 2026

Welcome back to RPC's Media and Communications law update where we recap on the key media judgments and developments over the last few months.

"Article 10.1: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

Neidle seeks first-ever SLAPP strike‑out under new ECCTA powers

Former Clifford Chance partner and tax commentator Dan Neidle has asked the High Court to strike out an £8 million libel and malicious falsehood claim brought by barrister Setu Kamal, relying on the new SLAPP provisions introduced by s.194 and 195 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA). The claim concerns an online article published by Tax Policy Associates (a non-profit founded by Neidle and which is also listed as a co-defendant) about an alleged tax avoidance scheme operated by Arka Wealth, for which the claimant was described as Arka Wealth's legal adviser.  The Defendants have alternatively applied to strike out the claim under the more familiar provisions of CPR 3.4(2)(a)-(c), and sought summary judgment of the libel claim relying on the honest opinion defence. 

The application, heard on 10 February with judgment reserved, is the first time the High Court has been asked to apply the new strike‑out power under CPR 3.4(2)(d), which allows the court to strike out a statement of case where it appears the claim meets the definition of a SLAPP under s.195 ECCTA and the claimant has failed to show that it is more likely than not the claim would succeed at trial.  As readers will be aware, the limited scope of the s.195 ECCTA definition means this is only available where the freedom of expression being restrained relates to economic crime.  

The Defendants' application included evidence on why they suspected economic crime may have occurred (being the alleged failure to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion offences), and why the article complained of would facilitate the investigation of economic crime.  The Defendants also relied on, among other things, the Claimant's attempts to have the article de-listed from search engines, regulatory complaints made over the article, an unsuccessful injunction application made without notice prior to the proceedings, and the Claimant's request for publication of a statement declaring the Defendants' belief that the Claimant was "the leading barrister in the field of taxation in the country" as a remedy in the letter before action.  

The Claimant argued that the Defendants were "disproportionately raising additional points to peripheral matters such as the Claimant's conduct" and said that his claim "is not intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience beyond that ordinarily encountered" in litigation.  We will no doubt cover the judgment in a future Take 10 edition, once handed down. 

UK anti-SLAPP legislation parked

In related SLAPPs news, Justice Minister Sarah Sackman's bid to crackdown on SLAPPs through new legislation has reportedly been excluded from the Labour party's package of reforms in an upcoming civil justice and courts bill.  The Times has suggested the omission is due to the fear of criticism by some lawyers.  The Ministry of Justice has said that anti-SLAPP measures may still be incorporated through different mechanisms. The news comes after an open letter signed by 127 editors, journalists, writers, and lawyers was sent to the Prime Minister on 28 January calling for universal anti-SLAPP provisions to be included in the May 2026 King's Speech (reported in our previous Take 10 issue here). A further 39 individuals have since added their names meaning the total signatories stand at 166 as of last Friday.

New landmark defamation legislation in Ireland

Meanwhile in Ireland last week, the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 was passed by both houses of the Irish Parliament. When it comes into force, the legislation will amend the Irish Defamation Act 2009 and make Irish defamation law more reflective of principles in the Defamation Act 2013. Some key new provisions include the abolition of trials by jury in High Court defamation actions and the introduction of a serious harm threshold for corporate defamation claims, where actual or likely serious financial loss must now be proved. Importantly, Part 7 of the Bill contains various safeguards against defamation proceedings being used as SLAPPs, which are far more expansive than current provisions in England and Wales. For example, the court must act "expeditiously" when determining applications to grant the defendant security for costs or strike out a claim for being manifestly unfounded [34D – 34E]. The defendant may subsequently also make an application for a court declaration that the claim or part of the claim amounts to a SLAPP which the court will then consider when making awards for costs and damages to the defendant for any injury, loss or damage suffered as a result of defending the claim [34F – 34H]. Furthermore, where a court finds a claim to be a SLAPP, the court shall direct that any written judgment or order of the court related to the finding be published on the Courts Service website for public knowledge [34I]. The Bill is now due to be signed into law.  

In tandem, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration Jim O'Callaghan also announced the publication of the General Scheme of the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill. The draft legislation is intended to apply to civil and commercial proceedings other than defamation proceedings, mirroring the provisions in Part 7 of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024, and is designed to give effect to the requirements of the EU's Anti-SLAPP Directive. 

Judgement reserved on limitation test claims in Duke of Sussex and Ors V MGN Limited

A ten-day trial of preliminary issue on limitation in five test claims in the long-running Mirror Newspaper Hacking Litigation concluded on 10 February 2026. The trial follows Mr Justice Fancourt's judgment in Duke of Sussex and Ors v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3217(Ch) which held that two claims were time-barred on limitation grounds. Following a wave of claimants discontinuing their claims in 2024, the remaining claimants allege that they can be distinguished from the Sussex judgment on the basis that, due to specific facts, they were not 'triggered' to investigate their prospective claims against MGN more than six years before the issue of their respective claims and, alternatively, could not have discovered they had worthwhile claims before that date. MGN contends that all five test claims could with reasonable diligence have discovered the relevant facts required to bring their claims in time. Judgment was reserved, with the outcome of the remaining claims dependent on or likely to be impacted by the Court's findings on s. 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980. RPC acts for MGN Limited.

Interim injunction refused despite alleged blackmail and defamatory website

On 9 February 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC refused a Claimant’s application for an interim injunction against two named individuals and three persons unknown.  The claim alleged libel, malicious falsehood and harassment arising out of a defamatory website (which the Claimant argued was operated by the named First and Second Defendants) and allegedly threatening messages.  The Claimant sought an injunction to prohibit the publication of private or defamatory material and the making financial demands and threats, and removal of the website. The Second Defendant, who was the only Defendant present and/or represented, denied any involvement in the website or the communications. 

The Judge accepted that the Claimant was likely to establish at trial that the First and Second Defendants were responsible for the website and messages (though made no finding of fact on this). However, the application failed for several reasons.  The Claimant did not satisfy s.12(3) Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) i.e. that it is likely that publication should not be allowed, as she had failed to identify any alleged serious harm or financial losses suffered to support the libel and malicious falsehood claims.  The Second Defendant also indicated at the hearing that he would defend the statement made on the website as true if necessary. The Judge commented that the rule in Bonnard v Perryman may therefore be a further obstacle to a libel injunction being granted and referred to previous authority that there may be a "blackmail exception" to this rule.  However he did not ultimately express a view on this given the failure to satisfy s.12(3) HRA.  The Judge also found that the Claimant's delay of one year between discovering the website and seeking relief to be inconsistent with the urgency required for an interim injunction, and that most of the damage that might have been avoided by the prompt obtaining of an injunction is now likely to have already occurred (and so could only be compensated for with a monetary award). 

Meaning determined in Belafonte v News Group Newspapers

On 11 February, Mrs Justice Collins Rice gave judgment on the meaning of an article published by The Sun in June 2024 titled: "Mel B's ex-husband Stephen Belafonte faces being questioned by UK police over harassment claims made by her". The Claimant denies the allegations in the article.

The Claimant argued the article conveyed Chase level 1 meanings that (a) he was guilty of harassment in the US and (b) he had cynically exploited a visit to England with their daughter to further harass Ms Brown which would cause the ordinary reader to infer a history of harassing and intimidatory behaviour therefore satisfying Chase level 1 meaning guilt is imputed.  The Defendant admitted the article made factual allegations about the Claimant which were defamatory at common law, but advocated for lesser meanings.  Namely, a Chase level 3 meaning that there were grounds to investigate whether the Claimant beat and abused his ex-wife during their marriage, and Chase level 2 and 3 meanings that there were grounds to suspect that the Claimant had flown a drone over his ex-wife's home and sent a process server to her home, and grounds to investigate whether the conduct amounted to harassment.

Collins Rice J noted that the ordinary reasonable reader of celebrity gossip must be allowed "a certain amount of loose thinking" as they are being entertained "rather than challenged to a fine analysis of the factual evidence or a balanced assessment of the probabilities" [29].  Collins Rice J found that the reference to a current restraining order against a background of historic marital violence allegations led the Judge to find a Chase level one meaning that "the Claimant is guilty of having harassed Ms Brown in the USA".

The Judge found a Chase level 2 meaning that there were grounds to suspect that the Claimant, on a subsequent visit to the UK had (a) caused a drone to be flown over Ms Brown's home and (b) caused a process server to visit her unnecessarily, and accordingly there were grounds to suspect he had harassed her in the UK.  In reaching the Chase level 2 finding, Collins Rice J had regard to the details about these incidents being reported from a source with no reason to doubt they happened, but without any connection made between the drone and the Claimant other than Ms Brown's generic fears about the Claimant.  The ordinary reasonable reader also would not necessarily recognise a choice made by the Claimant or his lawyers as to the mode of service as being unnecessary given their unfamiliarity with the rules of service.  

MoJ to replace Courtsdesk after it was ordered to delete its archives

The Government is developing a new system for sharing court information with journalists after Courtsdesk was instructed to delete its archives for allegedly breaching data protection rules. Courtsdesk has been widely used by over 1,500 journalists since its launch in 2020.  Courtsdesk has said its service aimed at improving open justice.  According to Courtsdesk's analysis, 1.6 million criminal hearings and two thirds of all courts' routine cases took place without any advanced notice to the press.

Justice Minister Sarah Sackman told MPs that Courtsdesk had shared “private, personal, legally sensitive information”, including addresses and dates of birth, with a third-party AI company in breach of its agreement with HMCTS.  Sackman said the new service will maintain existing access while placing information on a “more secure, licensed and regulatorily secure footing”. The minister stressed that public and journalistic access to court listings “does not change”, but that stronger guardrails are needed to prevent a “wild west” of data‑sharing with AI firms. A replacement licensing model is expected to be launched next month.

Government pledges new measures to keep children safe online

This week, the UK government has vowed to take "immediate action" to tackle online safety for children with a range of new measures to lay the groundwork for "further, faster action" and "close loopholes".  The measures include a proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to require all AI chatbot providers currently outside the scope of the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA) to comply with the illegal content duties in the OSA.  New powers are also to be included in the forthcoming Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to "lay the foundation" for swift action off the back of its upcoming consultation on children's digital wellbeing. As reported in Take 10 previously (see here), the consultation is assessing the "full range of risks" to children in the online world, and will consider whether to ban social media for under-16s, implement phone curfews and restrict "potentially addictive design features" such as "streaks" and "infinite scrolling".  It will also consider options to age restrict or limit children's use of VPNs where this undermines safety protections. The Government intends to introduce new primary legislation tackling the issues that emerge from the consultation "within months rather than waiting for years".  It has also pledged to ensure that data is preserved following a child's death before it can be deleted, except where online activity is clearly not relevant to the death.  

Trump v BBC: Judge refuses BBC's bid to pause discovery

A U.S. federal judge has refused the BBC’s application to stay discovery in President Donald Trump’s $10 billion defamation claim, meaning the case will now move into full merits‑based disclosure. A two‑week trial has also been listed, beginning 15 February 2027 in Miami. The BBC sought to stay discovery pending determination of its forthcoming motion to dismiss to claim on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.  The motion to dismiss has not yet been filed with the court. 

District Judge Roy Altman refused the stay on two principal grounds. First, he held that the application was premature.  While the BBC had set out the position it intended to take in the motion to dismiss, and Trump had responded, the Judge concluded that he could not say with certainty that the motion was either “clearly meritorious” or that it would dispose of the case entirely. This "preliminary peek" at the merits was an essential requirement when considering whether to pause discovery.

Second, he held that the BBC had not sufficiently shown that it would suffer specific prejudice if discovery proceeded. The Court rejected the BBC’s argument that disclosure would be unduly burdensome, describing its predictions about wide‑ranging document requests as speculative. Judge Altman emphasised that cross‑border discovery, privilege issues and data‑privacy concerns are routinely managed through existing procedures, and that any particularised disputes can be addressed by the assigned magistrate judge under the Court’s detailed discovery protocols.

EU issues guidelines to safeguard journalism on major digital platforms 

The European Commission has issued guidelines on how Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) should implement the media services providers declaration system in accordance with Article 18 European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).  Under Article 18(1) EMFA, VLOPs must notify media providers before removing journalistic content, explain the reasons for doing so, and allow media service providers 24 hours to respond. To access these protections, media organisations must submit a declaration confirming they meet key criteria, including editorial independence, regulatory oversight, and human review of AI‑generated content.

The guidelines explain how this declaration system should work in practice, including minimum general features. VLOPs must provide a prominent, easy‑to‑use interface,  in the form of a standardised questionnaire, available in all relevant EU languages, and capable of covering all of the accounts operated by that media organisation on the platform in one submission. VLOPs should make the declarations they receive publicly accessible and platforms must authenticate submissions to prevent misuse.  VLOPs are also encouraged to actively promote the availability of the declaration functionality, which can be via their terms of service.

The Commission also sets out how VLOPs should handle declarations, including when they may reject or invalidate them, and emphasises that decisions must be based solely on the Article 18 criteria, not on the provider’s content. Where there is reasonable doubt about a provider’s regulatory status, VLOPs should consult the relevant national regulator or recognised self‑regulatory body. Civil society organisations, including fact‑checkers, may flag concerns about potential abuse.

For media organisations, the guidelines provide greater clarity on how to secure Article 18 protections, and for platforms, they set clear expectations on transparency, process and accountability in moderation decisions affecting professional journalism.

Admin Court upholds judicial reviews on free speech grounds

The Administrative Court has held that The Police Federation of England and Wales acted unlawfully in suspending and restricting the roles of two elected chairs because, among other reasons, it failed to properly consider their Article 10 ECHR freedom of expression rights.

The Claimants had been disciplined and barred from re-election for eight months over separate comments they made on television and/or social media concerning their views on racism and policing.  The two judicial review claims were heard together given the overlapping legal issues to be determined.  The court recognised that both Claimants' Article 10 rights were engaged, as they were expressing their views on matters of public interest and doing so as democratically elected office holders. The court stressed that elected representatives must be able to speak freely on such issues without fear of reprisal.  Accordingly, the Defendant's decisions in imposing and maintaining sanctions on their freedom of speech were unlawful as they did not take into account the Claimants' Article 10 rights or provide a proportionate justification for restricting these rights. The court also ruled that any restrictions on the media and social-media engagement of elected officials should be proscribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be justified as necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

Quote of the fortnight

"...Article 10 protects speech that may "shock and offend" and that protection is particularly important where the speech is political - expression of opinion on matters of public and political interest. That approach accords with the text of Article 10, which permits restrictions only where "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society"…"

Mr Justice Obi at para 73 of Prior & Anor v The Police Federation of England and Wales.