Take 10 - 29 May 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."

High Court throws out parallel defamation claims in De Giovanni v Kehoe & Ors [2026]

Mrs Justice Steyn handed down judgment on 13 May 2026 on two duplicate defamation claims, setting aside default judgment and striking out a County Court Claim and setting aside a subsequent High Court Claim, explaining that "bringing duplicate proceedings in parallel and for such a purpose is plainly an abuse of process".

Claudio De Giovanni brought two separate defamation claims in response to an article published in The Londoner titled "Claudio is Scamming". The Claimant issued the first claim in the county court against a freelance journalist for Mill Media and obtained default judgment for £10,250 last year. Subsequently, De Giovanni issued a High Court claim against the journalist, Mill Media, and its founder and editor seeking damages of £250,000.

The default judgment was set aside pursuant to CPR 13.2 on the basis that the claim form had not been validly served (it had been sent to the defendant's previous address). Mrs Justice Steyn concluded that, although the claim had been brought first, it had been issued for the "express purpose of imposing pressure in respect of the (then threatened) High Court claim". Mill Media and The New Statesman classified this claim as a SLAPP and cited it to support their case for government reforms in this area of law. Cormac Kehoe, the freelance journalist targeted, told the Press Gazette that his case "highlights the absurdity of the system and the desperate need for the Government to … press ahead".  In respect of the second claim, the court made a declaration that it had no jurisdiction and set aside the claim form pursuant to CPR rule 11(6) because as it was not validly served within four months of being issued.

Ogunkami v Chia – Foreign harm must be properly pleaded for global damages 

In June 2025, Deputy High Court Judge Alegre handed down a judgment awarding Idowu Ogunkanmi £25,000 in “global damages” and injunctive relief after he succeeded in libel and harassment claims against Cynthia Chia, arising from a nine-year campaign of repeated contact and Instagram/Twitter posts accusing him of serious criminal conduct (including rape and evidence tampering). The Defendant did not engage with the proceedings and did not apply to set aside the default judgment. The Claimant had discontinued claims against Meta Platforms Inc before judgment.

The Claimant nevertheless appealed the damages award, arguing the judge under-compensated him by focusing on reputational harm in England and Wales rather than the global reach of online publication. At a hearing in May 2026, the Court of Appeal considered: (1) whether English courts can compensate reputational harm suffered abroad; (2) what must be pleaded and proved to recover damages for foreign publication; and (3) the proper approach to assessing damages following default judgment. The court stressed the key issue was not jurisdiction to hear a libel claim with overseas effects, but whether the Claimant had established a right to recover damages for harm abroad on his pleadings and evidence.

The court held that, where jurisdiction exists, English courts can in principle determine claims involving foreign reputational harm, but such claims must be properly pleaded and proved. Post-Brexit, claimants cannot rely on the Brussels regime and authorities such as Shevill; post-transition cases turn on common law and domestic statute. Under the common-law “double actionability” rule, each foreign publication must be actionable both under English law and under the law of the place of publication, requiring foreign publication to be pleaded as separate causes of action by jurisdiction. Although a “presumption of similarity” may sometimes apply, the court may reject it were unrealistic or unreasonable. The Claimant failed to plead foreign publication/actionability, and worldwide online accessibility did not of itself justify global damages; modern analytics can assist in identifying where publication and harm occurred.

The appeal was therefore dismissed based on the inadequacy of the pleadings and the agreement that the High Court’s approach was correct. A late application to “retrospectively amend” the Particulars of Claim was refused as the new elements pleaded would have been statute barred had they formed part of a separate claim. 

Sasha Rodoy loses libel claim against Optical Express 

On 22 May 2026, the High Court ruled that Sasha Rodoy's libel claim against Optical Express failed on the grounds that the allegations were substantially true.

Rodoy's claim related to four letters that the Defendant had sent to patients which contained references to the Claimant's website "Optical Express Ruined My Life". The letters described Rodoy as a fraudster explaining that she had been trolling Optical Express and its staff online to the extent that the safety of the staff was at risk. Rodoy had been vocal about the risks associated with laser eye surgery following her own experience in 2011, however, her surgery was not carried out by Optical Express.

While the claimant had suffered serious harm as a result of the publications, the claim was successfully defended on basis that the allegations were substantially true. The allegations were published in letters by Optical Express to patients, and Mr Justice Griffiths determined that the letters were protected by qualified privileged on the basis that there was "between the maker and recipients of the defamatory statements a common and reciprocal interest". There was no evidence of malice to displace the claim of qualified privilege.  

Lodhia v Twelve Trees Management Company & Ors – Discontinuance can’t escape costs 

On 18 May 2026, Mr Justice Linden handed down judgment confirming that discontinuance will rarely shield a claim from adverse costs. The Claimant, a litigant in person, issued defamation and malicious falsehood proceedings against five Defendants in May 2025. Over time, the case narrowed: two individual Defendants were dropped; the malicious falsehood claim was abandoned; and the number of pleaded defamatory statements was progressively reduced. The claim was ultimately discontinued in April 2026, leading to a costs hearing on 6 May 2026.

CPR 38.6 provides that a claimant who discontinues is liable for the defendant's costs unless the court orders otherwise. The court found no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants and instead held that the Claimant's own litigation strategy drove much of the unnecessary costs. This included resisting the Defendants' summary judgment application, only later to concede substantial points via significant amendments before discontinuing. The court also rejected the Claimant's "inequality of arms" argument based on the Defendants being insured for costs meaning it would not be unreasonable for them to bear the costs.

Dale Vince faces £600k legal bill after discontinuing claim 

A week later, the Court of Appeal ordered that Dale Vince pay Lord Shaun Sharif Bailey's costs of the appeal in Dale Vince v Lord Shaun Sharif Bailey [2025] EWHC 287 on the indemnity basis after Vince discontinued the claim on 20 March 2026. The Times reports that Vince will face a potential costs liability of around £600,000.

Vince issued the libel claim after Lord Bailey's appearance on a GB News programme, where he claimed that Vince had previously "called Hamas freedom fighters" (which Vince denied). Last year the High Court determined that this was a statement of opinion which meant that Vince's case then depended on proof that Lord Bailey did not believe what he said pursuant to section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 2013.  Lord Bailey appealed aspects of the ruling, before Mr Vince filed a notice of discontinuance.

In the Order dated 27 May 2026, Lord Justice Warby inferred – in the absence of any explanation – that the claimant discontinued the claim as he does not believe that he could prove that Lord Bailey spoke dishonestly. Warby LJ's reasons for awarding indemnity costs take into account the decision in Thakkar that parties who fail in allegations of dishonesty can face indemnity costs orders.

Ofcom and Online Safety updates:

Ofcom's new draft amendments to its Illegal Content Codes recommend that tech firms use automated detection technology, such as hash-matching, to tackle illegal intimate images online such as explicit deepfakes and other content shared without consent. Hash-matching coverts known harmful images into 'hashes' (also known as digital fingerprints) to help identify and remove matching material. This would complement the existing duty on tech platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of notification under the Crime and Policing Act 2026. The amendments are expected to be implemented in Autumn 2026, subject to Parliamentary approval. Similarly, Ofcom is expected to publish further safety measures, developed following its October 2025 online protection consultation, at around the same time.

In other Ofcom news, Meta, Snap and Roblox have committed to introducing additional anti-grooming measures across their platforms for users aged under 16. These include more stringent default settings for chats, contact lists, and online friendship groups, alongside AI-powered detection tools to flag potential online harms. In particular, Meta will introduce a new default setting on Instagram to hide under-16s' connections lists. The tech giant is also expected to develop AI technology capable of identifying sexualised conversations between adults and teenagers in direct messages, enabling more effective enforcement action. Finally. Meta has pledged to apply "movie-style" age-rating settings to content on Instagram and Facebook, helping to limit teens' feeds to age-appropriate material. 

Government focus shifts from an outright social media ban for children to targeting addictive features on platforms

The government consultation into children's wellbeing online ended on 26 May 2026 after receiving over 81,000 responses. Those in the tech industry reportedly believe that the government's attention is shifting away from an outright ban on social media for children under 16 and towards measures to address addictive features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, location sharing and disappearing messages. This move will likely be attributed to safety concerns and difficulties with the enforcement of an outright ban.

While we await the decision, there appear to be opposing views in government with Wes Streeting supporting the outright ban for under 16s akin to the restrictions brought into Australia at the end of last year. His position relies on the recent report released by The Education Committee. For more information, read our previous discussion on the parliamentary developments surrounding the proposed ban, including the progress of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 which received royal assent on 29 April 2026.

Water companies fined nearly £1 million after cyber-attack exposed customer/employee data on the dark web

On 11 May 2026, the ICO fined South Staffordshire Plc and South Staffordshire Water Plc nearly £1 million after a cyber-attack compromised the personal data of more than 1.85 million customers, former customers, and employees. The attack began with a phishing email in September 2020 but was not detected until July 2022, after IT performance issues prompted investigation. The breach was then reported to the ICO within 10 days of discovery.

South Staffordshire later discovered that an astounding 4.1 terabytes of personal data relating to 633,887 people had been published on the dark web between August - November 2022 with some of the data containing bank details and HR information.

Following an investigation by the ICO, it was found that the water companies failed to implement appropriate security controls under UK data protection law including: limited security allowing the attacker to easily access administrator privileges; inadequate monitoring for malicious activity; the use of outdated software; and the lack of regular security scans. South Staffordshire did not appeal the ICO's findings and together with its early admission of liability, received a 40% reduction in the fine, reducing it from over £1,600,000 to £963,900. 

Quote of the fortnight

“I think the message of this case is don’t abuse the British justice system to get stories taken down when they are based on valid journalism … We will always stand up and fight it… It’s really good to see that this attempt to misuse the system to suppress good journalism has failed.”

Josh Herrmann, one of the defendants in De Giovanni v Kehoe & Ors [2026] speaking to the Press Gazette.