Take 10 - 31 October 2025

RPC's Media Team is delighted to have once again retained its Band 1 ranking in Defamation/Reputation Management and Publishing in the Chambers UK 2026 Rankings. We are especially pleased to congratulate our senior associates Samantha Thompson, Mafruhdha Miah, and Alexandra Littlewood on achieving new individual rankings this year, and to Alex Wilson for a promotion in his individual ranking.

Laurence Fox's libel claim to be retried following serious harm reversal

The Court of Appeal has held that Laurence Fox should be granted a retrial in his libel dispute on grounds that the first instance decision erred in the approach to the assessment of serious harm. The proceedings concern a 2020 Twitter exchange between Mr Fox and three individuals (Simon Blake, Colin Seymour and Nicola Thorp).  At first instance, the High Court awarded Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each after Mr Fox alleged they were paedophiles, and dismissed Mr Fox's libel counterclaim after finding that the posts calling him racist did not cause serious harm to his reputation. See our previous Take 10 for more details.

The first instance Judge had seen evidence of 15 third-party tweets calling Mr Fox racist before the tweets complained of, but the Claimants had not pursued their case that Fox had a general bad reputation as a racist at trial. The Court of Appeal found that the Judge had erred in considering whether, if Mr Fox had a reputation for being a racist, that reputation had been shown to result from the tweets complained of.  The Judge had also considered a range of other factors which might have caused or contributed to reputational harm, which included previous third-party publications similar to the alleged libels, and Mr Fox's own statements.  Following the rules in Dingle and Plato Films v Speidel, the Court of Appeal held that it was wrong to have considered third-party publications in the causation assessment of serious harm, and that this was evidence that Mr Fox had a general bad reputation as a racist.  The Court of Appeal considered that the "only conclusion" was that the publications had caused serious harm to Mr Fox's reputation, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and scale of publication. Consequently, the case will be remitted for re-trial on the issues of honest opinion, truth and if necessary, damages.

The Court of Appeal also upheld Mr Blake and Mr Seymour's libel claims but halved the "excessive" damages to £45,000 each, having regard to Mr Fox's steps to mitigate the harm and rejecting the first instance Judge's treatment of mainstream media reporting of the parties' exchanges as evidence of additional reputational harm. 

Ofcom updates guidance around politicians presenting news

On 20 October 2025, Ofcom confirmed that it would not be expanding the scope of Rule 5.3 of the Broadcasting Code to prohibit politicians from presenting news in "any type of programme" as opposed to maintaining the current restriction on politicians presenting "news programmes" only.  It follows the High Court's decision in R (on the application of GB News Limited) v Ofcom [2025] EWHC 460 (Admin) that Rule 5.3 does not, for example, prevent politicians presenting current affairs programmes. Ofcom subsequently consulted on expanding Rule 5.3 to prevent politicians presenting news in any type of programme but a number of broadcasters raised concerns with the "significant practical challenges" which could inadvertently lead to a de facto ban on politicians presenting any kind of programme.

Ofcom has instead updated its guidance to clarify that if an MP presents news outside of "news programmes", their status as an MP, political position on the issue and the nature and subject of the news would be a relevant factor in assessing whether the news had been presented with due impartiality.  The definition of a "politician" has been updated to remove "activists", and to include members of the House of Lords and "representatives" of political parties. Ofcom has also expanded on the "exceptional circumstances" in which politicians could deliver news, namely being circumstances that "are outside the control and/or could not have been foreseen" by the broadcaster, though this situation would be "rare" and contingency measures must be in place to avoid such situations.

ECtHR reinforces that politicians should expect a higher level of scrutiny

The European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment on 21 October 2025 in the case of Mortensen v Denmark (Application no 16756/24), finding that the conviction of defamation (punishable by a fine and compensation) for calling the leader of a right-wing national and anti-Islam political party a "Nazi" had unnecessarily interfered with the applicant's Article 10 rights.  The ECtHR disagreed that the X post complained of "failed to contribute to a topic of public interest".  The post implied that there was injustice that someone had been arrested for insulting a police officer whereas, in the applicant's opinion, the politician could "say horrible things about people solely on the basis of their ethnic origin". There was also no indication that the post had been widely viewed or shared.

The ECtHR criticised the Danish court's failure to address "how well known the person concerned is and his prior conduct", observing that the politician was a well-known public figure, and had attracted attention to himself in the past with his anti-Islam protests, including burning Qurans. The ECtHR emphasised that public figures must display "a particularly high degree of tolerance" to critical comment and in the circumstances, the Danish court had not conducted a proper balancing exercise between the competing rights of the applicant and the politician. The ECtHR found the interference with the applicant's Article 10 rights to be "disproportionate", and the sanctions imposed to be disproportionately severe.  

Permission to appeal refused in Hijab v The Spectator & Douglas Murray

Mohammed Hijab has been refused permission to appeal his defamation claim against The Spectator and Douglas Murray. Mr Hijab's claim concerned an article published in September 2022, authored by Douglas Murray, which alleged that Mr Hijab had whipped up his followers on the streets of Leicester during the civil unrest in 2022 by, among other things, making derogatory comments about Hindus by reference to their belief in reincarnation. In his judgment on 5 August 2025, Mr Justice Johnson found that Mr Hijab failed to establish that the article had caused or was likely to cause serious harm to his reputation, and also held that the Defendants' truth defences succeeded. Further details of the claim can be found in our summer round-up edition of Take 10.

In refusing permission for Mr Hijab to appeal the findings, Warby LJ considered the success of the truth defences to be "properly reasoned from legitimate findings of fact based on admissible evidence". Warbly LJ also found that having heard Mr Hijab's evidence, Johnson J was "plainly entitled to find that his evidence was 'worthless' and to make findings of dishonesty".  On serious harm, Warby LJ held that it was "open to argument that the judge should have inferred serious harm" and that his approach to the parties' online followings and the response of those who followed Mr Hijab may have involved legal errors comparable to those identified in Blake v Fox (see above). However, it made no difference whether or not Johnson J had erred in relation to serious harm because of his "unchallengeable findings" on the truth defences which meant the claim "must fail in any event".  RPC acts for The Spectator. 

Settlement reached in The Lost King libel claim

On 27 October, Richard Taylor settled his libel claim against Pathe Productions, Baby Cow Productions and Steve Coogan regarding the film The Lost King. The film covered the discovery and identification of the remains of Richard III under a Leicester car park in 2012. Mr Taylor was portrayed in the film as the key co-ordinator for the University of Leicester's involvement in the dig.  The settlement follows a preliminary issue trial on meaning, in which His Honour Judge Lewis found that the film depicted Mr Taylor as having "knowingly misrepresented" the University's involvement in the search for Richard III's remains, and as being "smug, unduly dismissive and patronising".  The claim has subsequently settled, with the Defendants agreeing to pay Mr Taylor damages and costs, and to make changes to the film to withdraw the allegations by adding an introductory message to the start of the film stating that the character of Mr Taylor does not represent the actions of the real Richard Taylor.

Two out of three interim injunctions refused in privacy, libel and harassment claim

In AXB v CYD, EYD and FZG [2025] EWHC 2642 (KB), an interim injunction was granted prohibiting the publication of private information, but the Court refused to make orders preventing the republication of allegedly defamatory statements and the pursuit of conduct alleged to amount to harassment. The case arises from four social‑media videos which the Claimant alleged accused her of being (i) an obsessive and mentally ill stalker and (ii) responsible for establishing, running and dishonestly falsifying the content on a related social media account.  

The Court granted the interim order prohibiting the publication of the Claimant's home address, personal telephone numbers and correspondence, and images of her child, as it is trite law that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy over such information and there was evidence that the Third Defendant had published it. For the allegedly defamatory statements, the Court was not satisfied that the Claimant's prospects of success at trial were sufficiently favourable to justify an order (contrary to the principle in Bonnard v Perryman) as it found there was a credible case that the Claimant was either behind, or at least substantially contributed to, material published on the social media account in question and the Defendants demonstrated sufficient prospects of successfully defending the claim via a truth defence. Injunctive relief against republication was therefore refused. Similarly, the Court refused to grant interim relief on the Claimant's harassment case as there was no real evidence that there was a threat of harassment from any Defendant before trial. However, the Court granted anonymity given the unusual circumstances of the case: the Claimant filed evidence that she had received death threats and was in serious fear for her and her child's safety due to the publications in question.

Dan Neidle invokes new ECCTA anti‑SLAPP provisions in £8m libel battle

The tax campaigner Dan Neidle has revealed that he and his company, Tax Policy Associates, are relying on new anti-SLAPP CPR provisions in applying to strike out an £8 million libel and malicious falsehood claim issued by barrister Setu Kamal over a February 2025 report they prepared on Arka Wealth - a firm linked to Mr Kamal. The report alleged Arka Wealth was promoting a tax avoidance scheme that should be “closed down to protect the public” as clients risked large up‑front tax liabilities and even losing control of their assets. In the claim form, Mr Kamal claims that the report falsely alleged that he engaged in unethical, unlawful or failed tax avoidance activity and that he posed a risk to the public. He also denies that his claim is abusive and intended to suppress scrutiny.

In advance of the application hearing, Neidle has published the claim form, and his application notice and supporting evidence on his website. This appears likely to be the first time the English court will have considered the new anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA). Under sections 194 and 195, the Court can strike out claims deemed to be SLAPPs, i.e. abusive actions intended to silence public‑interest speech in respect of alleged economic crimes that cause harassment, alarm, distress, expense or any other harm or inconvenience "beyond that ordinarily encountered in the course of properly conducted litigation". Neidle claims the action is an attempt to deter scrutiny of tax avoidance schemes and should be struck out under ECCTA. Mr Kamal has not published any responsive evidence, and copies are not publicly available. Watch this space for what will be a seminal decision on the application of the ECCTA.

BBC documentary found to have breached Broadcasting Code

Ofcom has ruled that the BBC's documentary 'Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone' breached Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code by not disclosing that the narrator was the son of a Hamas official. The BBC has accepted Ofcom's findings in full, having conducted its own internal review of the programme in July. Ofcom found the omission to be "materially misleading" as it withheld information potentially crucial to viewers' assessment of the narrator's perspective in a highly sensitive context.  The BBC stressed that following its internal review, there was no evidence of improper influence on the documentary's content and reiterated its commitment to restoring public trust and no other breaches of the Broadcasting Code were found by Ofcom. The BBC has been directed to broadcast a statement of Ofcom's findings at a later date.  The documentary was removed from iPlayer in February after the narrator's family links emerged. 

Donald Trump refiles $15 billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and Penguin Random House

On 16 October, Donald Trump filed an amended defamation claim against the New York Times, Penguin Random House LLC and three journalists after the initial statement of case was struck out. The initial 85-page pleading, which only made reference to two counts of alleged defamation on the 80th and 83rd pages, was found to be "decidedly improper and impermissible” in the form originally filed. The revised 40-page pleading alleges defamation arising from the publication of a book published by Penguin Random House titled 'Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success' and two articles in the New York Times. The allegations include that President Trump received a modern-day equivalent of a $400 million inheritance from his father, which his father accumulated through illegal tax evasion schemes. Trump claims the statements threaten to damage his reputation as a successful businessman and affect the credibility and profitability of his businesses, and seeks $15 billion in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. In response to the amended filing, the New York Times said: "this lawsuit has no merit.  Nothing has changed today.  This is merely an attempt to stifle independent reporting and generate PR attention, but the New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics".  

Two years on since the Online Safety Act received Royal Assent 

On 26 October, the Online Safety Act reached the two-year mark since it received Royal Assent. Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom’s Group Director of Online Safety, said "real change" is already underway.  Ofcom has said it plans to publish a report in December to "detail the progress seen so far". This follows the letter from Ofcom's CEO, Dame Melanie Dawes, to the Chairs of the Chairs of the Communications and Digital Select Committee and the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee earlier this month updating the Committees on the implementation of the Online Safety Act to date.  Dame Dawes explains that the "most visible and significant change" has been the introduction of age assurance measures on pornography sites and sites hosting "primary priority content" (as defined by the Act).  She also set out Ofcom's priorities to achieve by the end of the 2025/2026 financial year, which includes completing a number of consultations and introducing a super-complaints regime. The consultation will remain open until 30 November.  Ofcom's current consultation to inform its guidance for the making of super-complaints will also close at 5pm on Monday 3 November 2025.

Next week, Ofcom also intends to publish a call for evidence on how online services have used age assurance measures to comply with their obligations under the Online Safety Act, and any barriers to these measures such as cost or privacy concerns.

Quote of the fortnight

"There is little scope under Article 10(2) of the Convention for restrictions on freedom of expression in two fields, namely political speech and matters of public interest. … A degree of hostility and the potential seriousness of certain remarks do not obviate the right to a high level of protection, given the existence of a matter of public interest."

The European Court of Human Rights in Mortensen v Denmark (Application no. 16756/24) at [44]