Take 10 - 6 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."

Claim over right of reply responses fails

Mrs Justice Collins Rice has ruled that a libel action brought by two individuals against HS2 Ltd was not the "appropriate vehicle" for pursuing their grievance over how their ex-employer referred to them in a Panorama documentary.

The programme – "HS2: The Railway that Blew Millions" - contained interviews with the Claimants in which they made various allegations about their time working for the Defendant and their subsequent dismissals, as well as 'right of reply' responses from the Defendant refuting the allegations as false, and indicating that both Claimants had failed their probationary periods.

The Court applied the well-established approach to meaning set out in Koutsogiannis v Random House, noting the additional requirements for broadcasts, including that most viewers will only view a programme once, meaning that the Court must be particularly vigilant against over-analysis. Acknowledging that the Claimants were portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light as important contributors whilst the Defendant's response would readily be understood as a "disengaged and conventional evasive formula", the Court's determined meaning included that the Claimants were whistleblowers and that there is reason to believe they were dismissed for their whistleblowing [58]. Critically, the programme was not defamatory of the Claimants at common law bringing an end to the action [60].

This decision reaffirms the importance of considering a publication as a whole when assessing libel risk, is a reminder of the slightly different approaches adopted when considering the meaning of a television broadcast compared to a newspaper article, and may provide some reassurance to publishers in receipt of hot-blooded right-of-reply responses when putting together their content.

Professor sues student over internal complaint

On 19 January 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC handed down a judgment on preliminary issues in a libel and malicious falsehood claim brought by a university lecturer against his student: RAJ v MSH.

At the material time, the Claimant was the academic lead for his university's law course.  The claim is over an email and an appeal made by the Defendant to the university challenging her 2:2 degree classification in which various serious allegations were made about the Claimant, including that he had forced her to enter a relationship with him against her will and had reduced her grades because she refused his sexual demands.

The decisions on meaning are at [33] and [40].  Should the claim proceed, it will be interesting to how the unusual circumstances impact serious harm, what defences are run (none are indicated in the judgment) and the determination of the claim.

Whilst it is unsurprising the Defendant is anonymised given the nature of the allegations, it is noteworthy that the Claimant was also evidently granted anonymity at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 

Anonymity for victims of sexual offences

The First Tier Tribunal's (FTT's) recent decision in Homer v ICO contains some interesting analysis on the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (SOAA) and data subject rights.

The Appellant made a freedom of information request to Walsall Council seeking a report on instances of child sexual abuse. The council refused, a decision which was upheld by the ICO. On appeal in the FTT, the Council and ICO relied on various Freedom of Information Act exemptions, including s40 FOIA, on the basis that the rights and freedoms of third party data subjects referred to in the report (including victims) overrode the interests of the Council and Appellant in disclosure, and s44 FOIA, on the basis the SOAA prohibited disclosure of information related to victims.

In respect of s40, the FTT determined that the Council's position that the entirety of the report constituted personal data was wrong, and further confirmed that an expectation of privacy does not automatically outweigh a legitimate interest in disclosure.  The FTT separated the data subjects referred to in the report into categories and considered each in turn.  It also analysed information which would identify a data subject and non-identifying personal data distinctly [57-118].  The decision is further confirmation that taking a blanket approach in the context of data protection is improper.

In respect of s44, the FTT was required to determine whether disclosure of any information in the report from the Council to the Appellant would amount to a "publication" prohibited under the SOAA [141-158].  The FTT observed that there "appear[ed] to be no direct authority on the point". In determining that publication of some parts of the report would be prohibited under the legislation, the decision provides authority that disclosure of information to just one individual may be prohibited under the SOAA [155].  

Court awards £50,000 for allegations of racism

Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC has awarded damages of £50,000 and a permanent injunction to a Claimant who brought a libel claim over four TikTok videos which alleged he was racist and had racially abused the Defendant: Ali v Hussain.

Two of the videos labelled the Claimant a "racist". While often similar allegations are held to be expressions of opinion (per Blake v Fox), the Court held the allegations had to be defended as statements of fact as they were unsupported i.e. were bare comments. Serious harm was established in respect of all four videos due to the gravity of the allegations combined with the scale of publication, with the videos receiving between 3,000 and 74,900 views each.

The Defendant's truth defence failed, with the Court finding that he was not a credible witness. Amongst other factors, contemporaneous records revealed that the Defendant did not mention the alleged racist remark during an investigation by the Claimant's employer.

On damages, the Court took into account the serious nature of the baseless allegations, particularly in light of the ethnicity of the Claimant, the scale of publication, and the dishonest manner in which the Defendant had defended the claim.

Anti-SLAPP legislation

127 editors, journalists and lawyers signed an open letter to the Prime Minister, various Cabinet Ministers and other key figures urging them to include universal Anti-SLAPP measures in the next King's Speech, expected in May                                                2026.

The letter acknowledges the anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 – which introduced the possibility of striking out SLAPPs in the context of economic crime – but labels those provisions "limited in scope and flawed in approach".  The letter petitions instead for "an effective early dismissal mechanism, an objective test for filtering SLAPPs out of court, and the ability [for courts and judges] to minimise costs and penalise bad conduct".

Scrutiny on AI's use of news content

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has published a report analysing how four leading AI tools (ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity) respond to news queries. The IPPR's analysis indicates that there is significant variation between the tools, and notable inconsistencies in the representation of different publishers.  To combat these issues, the report recommends that AI companies pay for the news they use trough collective licensing deals which ensure a wide range of publishers are drawn from, as well as advocating for "nutrition labels" for AI news and using public funding to protect independent news by backing a BBC-led public interest AI news service.

Meanwhile, the CMA has proposed a package of measures aimed to "help businesses and consumers make active and informed choices when using Google’s search services in the UK", including ensuring news publishers and other content producers "get a fairer deal over how their content is used in Google’s AI Overviews". Under the proposals, publishers would have the opportunity to opt out of having their content used to train AI models, Google would need to take steps to ensure content is properly attributed and that results are ranked fairly and transparently.

"No reasonable grounds" for High Court data protection claim over England Athletic emails  

In Ness v Miller, the Court struck out a data protection and false imprisonment claim related to emails sent to England Athletics containing various allegations about the Claimant and referring to him having being charged by the police for harassment.

The Particulars of Claim disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim, including because they lacked particularity. Further, the Court held that pursuit of the data claim would be an abuse of process in light of the Court's previous decision dismissing the Claimant's libel claim over the same emails owing to his failure to establish that the Claimant was responsible for publication.

Quote of the fortnight

"…democracy cannot be sustained without everyone being able to express themselves, challenge wrongdoing, or inform others."

Joint letter to the Prime Minister signed by 127 media and legal figures, 28 January 2026.