Take 10 - 17 April 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."

Widespread call for action over SLAPP claims

On Wednesday this week, media organisations across the UK took part in a Day of Action against SLAPPs, coordinated by the News Media Association and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition.  Participating media outlets published op-eds on the issue and called on the government to introduce robust anti-SLAPP legislation. The UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition highlighted the particular vulnerability of smaller, local media outlets (including student newspapers) less able to absorb the significant costs required to defend SLAPPs. The call for reform has also been backed by a MPs across the political spectrum, including Labour's Lloyd Hatton, the Liberal Democrats' Jess Brown-Fuller and the Conservatives' Sir David Davis. A Government spokesperson told PA Media that it will detail its future legislative programme in the "usual way through the King's Speech" taking place on 13 May, and was "continuing to engage with stakeholders as we consider further action to clamp down on SLAPPs in other areas" beyond economic crime.

Meanwhile, the Claimant in the first judicially-branded SLAPP claim has been ordered to pay indemnity costs of £146,643.88. Last month, Setu Kamal's libel and malicious falsehood claim against Tax Policy Associates and Dan Neidle was found to be a SLAPP (as defined by s.195 Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023) and would have been struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(d) had the Defendants' concurrent strike out application pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a-c) not also succeeded (see the previous Take 10 here). Costs were subsequently determined. Tax Policy Associates was given permission by Mrs Justice Collins Rice to publish its own summary of her reasons for awarding indemnity costs.

In summary, the fact that the claim met the s.195 SLAPP criteria was relevant but "by no means determinative or even necessarily a particularly weighty factor" as the test for indemnity costs requires a holistic approach and conduct which is "morally reprehensible or unreasonable to a high degree". The s.195 test focused on a Claimant's intention as opposed to the outcome of that conduct on the litigation. Collins Rice J had regard to the significant £8m+ valuation of the claim which would have had (and she found was intended to have) a significant effect on the Defendant's conduct of the litigation. She also gave weight to the poor particularisation of the malice claim without a proper basis. The Claimant did not submit any objections before the decision was finalised. 

Court of Appeal rules on meaning: Currie v Soho Theatre [2026] EWCA Civ 400 

In a relatively rare Court of Appeal case where permission to appeal was granted in respect of a meaning determination in a libel claim, comedian Paul Currie has lost his appeal against Soho Theatre.

Mr Currie issued libel proceedings against Soho Theatre over a 2024 press release issued by the Theatre following an incident between Mr Currie and members of the audience.  At a preliminary issue trial on meaning, Mr Justice Nicklin found that the meaning of the press release was (our paraphrasing): that Mr Currie had verbally abused Jewish members of an audience at Soho Theatre (found to be a statement of fact) and that this was intimidating, antisemitic, appalling, unacceptable and inconsistent with the values of the Theatre (found to be a statement of opinion).

Mr Currie appealed the decision, seeking a variation of the words which would add 'because they were Jewish' to the statement of fact, an implication which he said the ordinary reasonable reader would have read into the words complained of.

However, the Court of Appeal exercised "disciplined restraint" not to interfere with the first instance meaning unless that meaning was outside the range of the ones reasonably available to the judge (per Stocker v Stocker [2019] AC 593 at [59]), and upheld the meaning found at first instance. Whilst the Court was prepared to accept that there could have been an implication that the Appellant acted in the manner that he did because he knew or perceived the audience members to be Jewish, those implicit words did not have to be placed in the category of statements of fact, and the judge was entitled to place them in the category of opinion. The meaning found was therefore one which was reasonably open to the first instance judge and the appeal was rejected. RPC acts for Soho Theatre.

Crispin Odey discontinues £79m libel claim against the FT 

On 10 April 2026, Crispin Odey discontinued his £79m libel claim against the Financial Times (FT). Odey had issued libel proceedings over two articles published in June and July 2023 reporting on 19 women's allegations of sexual assault and/or harassment by Odey. The FT relied on both truth and public interest defences. Witness statements were due to be exchanged on 24 April and a five-week trial was due to commence on 29 June 2026.

In discontinuing the claim, Odey reiterated his denial of the allegations "in the strongest possible terms". His solicitors said that following review of the FT's "extensive disclosure" provided earlier this year, Odey had been "forced to accept" that the FT's public interest defence was "likely to succeed" at trial.  

The FT's Editor, Roula Khalaf, has described the withdrawal of the claim as "a vindication for investigative journalism and for the victims whose stories of abuse we reported". RPC acted for the FT.

Publishers push back against reduced cost ceiling for processing FOI requests 

The News Media Association (NMA) has expressed concerns and called for "clarity" on the government's proposals to reduce the cost ceiling for processing Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Under s.12 Freedom of Information Act 2000, a FOI request can be rejected if the anticipated cost of responding exceeds "the appropriate limit", currently set at £600 for central government or £450 for other public authorities. In 2024, central government received 83,041 FOI requests, said to be the highest number since records began in 2005.  Against the rising number of requests, the government is reportedly considering whether to reduce the cost cap.

The NMA's chief executive Owen Meredith has reportedly written to the government to point out that such a measure would "place a wider category of important information entirely beyond scrutiny". According to the Press Gazette, Meredith's letter also pointed out that the cost limits have not risen in line with inflation over the 20 years since they were set.  He also noted that the discretion to refuse requests on costs grounds were not measured against any public interest balancing exercise, and that rather than preventing trivial requests, lowering the cost cap was more likely to exclude "the most sensitive and significant requests".

Phase 1 of Southport Inquiry makes online safety recommendations 

The Southport Inquiry has published its report of Phase 1 of the public inquiry, which examined the events leading up to the attack and the decision-making and information-sharing of local services and agencies of the risk the perpetrator (AR) posed to the public.

Of the 67 recommendations made by the Inquiry, several relate to online safety. The Inquiry concluded AR had "a deep and enduring preoccupation with extreme violence and the brutal deaths of others".  He had twice downloaded an academic article with text from an Al-Qaeda training manual and accessed "a wide range of vile and disturbing imagery" andarticles and papers relating to atrocities. He was also able to purchase a number of weapons and toxins online.

The report recommends that Phase 2 of the Inquiry consider whether there should be greater powers to restrict or monitor access to the internet for children who pose a significant risk to others, as well as considering age-verification for the use of Virtual Private Network (VPNs) software to avoid VPNs being used to circumvent age-related protections in the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). The report also recommends that the training and technical tools of Counter Terrorism Police for investigating online activity should be strengthened.  Finally, the inquiry has called for the government to consider extending the powers under s.101 OSA to allow senior coroners to make a notification to Ofcom to obtain access to social media accounts of perpetrators of similar incidents (not just the accounts of a child who has died) and for this power to extend to statutory public inquiries as well. 

Government approves Axel Springer's £575 million takeover of the Telegraph

German media firm Axel Springer's £575 million acquisition of Telegraph Media Group (TMG) has been given government approval to proceed.  Axel Springer is hoping to expand TMG's business to become the "leading centre-right media outlet in the English-speaking world" and grow the company's presence in the US market. The approval comes after a previous attempt by the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) to acquire TMG was blocked due to potential competition concerns given DMGT's existing significant share of the UK newspaper market.  The deal is still subject to further regulatory hurdles in Ireland and Austria. Provided those hurdles can be surpassed, the takeover is anticipated to be finalised before the end of Q2 2026.

Banksy awarded indemnity costs in libel claim 

Following the discontinuance of a libel claim against famed artist Banksy and his company, Mr Justice Nicklin has awarded the Defendants indemnity costs in Full Colour Blank v (1) The artist known as "Banksy" and (2) Pest Control Office Limited [2026] EWHC 795 (KB).

Following a long history of allegations of unauthorised exploitation of Banksy's work by Full Colour Bank (FCB), FCB had entered into a collaboration with clothing brand Guess to sell clothing which featured Banksy's artwork. In response, Banksy posted an image on Instagram which encouraged shoplifting of the clothing from the Guess store in Regent Street. FCB sued for libel in respect of the Instagram post but discontinued under threat of a summary judgment/strike out application.

The general rule pursuant to CPR r.38.6 is that the claimant is liable for the defendant's costs up to the date of discontinuance. Those costs are usually assessed on the standard basis, unless there are grounds for the court to award indemnity costs. In this case, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that in addition to the case lacking real prospects of success [120], the proceedings were also deployed inappropriately to exert pressure on Banky's well-known concern to preserve his anonymity [121].  The Court was therefore satisfied that the proceedings "were pursued in a manner and for purposes which were unreasonable to a high degree and which take the case outside the norm" [128], making an indemnity costs order appropriate. The case serves as a good example that indemnity costs orders are available not only for unreasonable conduct, but also where litigation is pursued in the face of impenetrable defences or otherwise for improper purposes.

Duke of Sussex labelled an "architect" of "adverse media campaign" in charity's defamation claim 

Sentebale, a charity supporting young people in southern Africa, has issued a defamation claim against its co-founder, the Duke of Sussex, and his close friend and former trustee, Mark Dyer.  Sentebale accuses the Defendants of conducting an "adverse media campaign" against the charity, its leadership, and its strategic partners since March 2025. The charity is seeking the court's "intervention, protection, and restitution" claiming the Defendants caused them to suffer from "operational disruption", "reputation harm", and an "onslaught of cyber-bullying".

Internal conflicts within the charity first emerged in early 2025 when the Duke of Sussex and several trustees left the charity amid a dispute with its chair. In August that year, the Charity Commission concluded that there was poor governance of the charity, but did not find any evidence of alleged bullying or harassment. The Defendants have "categorically" rejected the claim (which was issued in March 2026), calling it "offensive" and "damaging".

Trump's defamation lawsuit against Wall Street Journal dismissed 

A Florida court has dismissed Donald Trump's $10 billion defamation claim against The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and others.  Trump claimed damages equivalent to £7.4 billion over an article in July 2025 reporting that Trump allegedly sent a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 featuring a drawing of a woman's body. Trump claimed the letter was fake and the story was concocted to defame him. 

The WSJ filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds, including that the article was true, that it was not defamatory and that Trump failed to adequately plead that the article was published with "actual malice" (one of the requirements of a defamation claim under Florida law).  The court found that Trump was "nowhere close" to establishing that the WSJ had deliberately avoided investigating the veracity of the statement in order to evade learning the truth. The WSJ had gone to Trump, Justice Department officials and the FBI for comment and the article reflected Trump's position. The court declined to rule on whether the article was true and/or defamatory. Trump reportedly intends to refile an amended claim. 

Ofcom consultation on transparency reporting 

On 15 April, Ofcom announced it is consulting on what categorised service providers should be required to publish in their annual transparency report under the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA). Schedule 8 of the OSA includes the possible matters on which Ofcom might request information in annual transparency notices issued under s.77 of the OSA. Ofcom is calling for views to help shape the development of the transparency notice scheme. Responses are required by 5pm on 30 April 2026.

Ofcom says it intends to begin issuing draft transparency notices following the publication of the Register of Categorised Services in summer 2026.  While all service providers in-scope of the OSA must have suitable measures in place to protect users from online harms, "categorised" services have additional transparency, risk assessment and record keeping duties.  

Quote of the fortnight

“Journalists should not have to weigh the public interest against the threat of financial ruin. Strong, effective anti-SLAPP protections are essential if scrutiny journalism is to survive.”

James Mitchinson, Editor at The Yorkshire Post