Take 10: 9 October 2026

Hello and welcome back to Take 10. We hope our readers are refreshed from the summer break and that you enjoy our fortnightly digest of the latest updates in media and communications law. All feedback is welcome and if you have any questions on any of the content covered in this edition, please reach out to a member of the team.

High Court rules against SRA over access to privileged documents…for now

In Carter-Ruck & Amersi v SRA [2026] EWHC 2416 (KB), the High Court determined that the SRA is not permitted to compel the production of privileged materials under its statutory investigative powers in circumstances where the client does not waive such privilege. The investigation related to the firm's conduct while acting for Amersi in connection with bringing or threatening data protection and defamation claims. The Court found that s.44B Solicitors Act 1974 does not override legal professional privilege; the statute contains no express abrogation of privilege; relevant parliamentary material did not indicate such an intention; there was no binding authority to suggest otherwise; and there was no permissible infringement exception available to the regulator. The SRA has been granted a leapfrog certificate allowing it to seek permission to appeal from the Supreme Court. Further analysis by our Professional Risks colleagues can be found here.  

Update on Farley & Ors v Paymaster

A two-day hearing before the Supreme Court in Farley v Paymaster concluded yesterday to address the issue of whether a threshold of seriousness applies to claims for damages under the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. The Court of Appeal previously held that such claims in relation to "non-material" damage, such as distress and anxiety, did not need to overcome a threshold of seriousness to succeed. If the appellate decision is upheld, then it will be easier for claimants to pursue low value claims though they will still need to prove that they suffered non-material damage. Judgment was reserved.

Indemnity costs awarded against claimants in unlawful information gathering claims 

Following the dismissal of seven claims alleging unlawful information gathering in July, Associated Newspapers has been awarded costs on the indemnity basis in Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited [2026] EWHC 2207 (KB). The Court was satisfied that the Claimants' conduct was unreasonable to a high degree thereby taking the case outside the norm.  In making the order, it relied on, inter alia, the Claimants' failure to adequately reassess the scope and strength of their "exceptionally wide" case as the litigation developed and withdraw allegations which could not be maintained; the continued reliance on evidence supplied by a witness who was seriously compromised; and the conduct of the trial, where new and unpleaded allegations were advanced in cross-examination and closing submissions. 

Coroner rejects anonymity requests for three witnesses in Sara Sharif inquest

Applications for anonymity orders in respect of three employees of Surrey County Council ("SCC") have been refused by the coroner in the Inquest into the death of Sara Sharif.  SCC submitted that anonymity was necessary to protect its employees from serious psychological harm to their and their family's health and wellbeing and relied upon independent medical evidence in support.  The coroner was not, however, satisfied that granting anonymity was justified on the evidence provided: it did not support SCC's submissions and was therefore insufficient to establish that publication of the employees' names constituted an interference with their Article 8 rights such as to outweigh Article 10 or the principle of open justice.

Solicitor awarded damages for defamatory Google review

In Conroy v Stojek [2026] EWHC 2429 (KB), the High Court awarded a solicitor £9,500 in damages following a defamatory Google review posted by his former client. The Claimant's case on serious harm was wholly inferential, but the Court found it to be sufficiently realistic and substantial. The review raised allegations of fraud and professional dishonesty which struck at the core of the Claimant's professional reputation and, in the circumstances, it was reasonable to infer that the review had been seen and found to be credible by readers.  In calculating the appropriate amount of damages, the Court considered the limited evidence on scale and impact of publication, the lack of aggravation, and the fact judgment would act as vindication of the Claimant's reputation.

What is the scope of a non-denigration undertaking?

The High Court determined the meaning of "denigrate" in a dispute over the scope of a non-denigration undertaking within a settlement agreement agreed between the parties in Lord Raminder Singh Ranger v Poonam Joshi [2026] EWHC 2451 (KB). The Defendant published nine social media posts which contained links to third-party news articles which were alleged to breach the undertaking.  The Court held that "denigrate" had the ordinary meaning of "blacken, belittle, disparage the character or reputation of, defame" and that the undertaking therefore extended beyond an ordinary undertaking not to publish false, unfair or libellous allegations. The Court granted a permanent injunction to prevent the Defendant from republishing such statements which had already been the subject of extensive reported in the public domain. 

Norwich Pharmacal Order granted over defamatory and harassing content

An application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order against internet domain companies has been granted after the Claimant's full name was embedded in thousands of URLs and results "snippets" relating to pornographic content over an 18-month period. The Court found the Claimant had a good arguable case in both harassment and defamation. The Court accepted the Claimant's submissions that the statements complained of were defamatory by implication, finding that she had a good arguable case that a right-thinking person would understand the juxtaposition of her name with adult content to be defamatory.

PHJ v UBV - interim injunction restraining publication continued  

The High Court has ordered that an interim injunction obtained to prevent publication of the Claimant's two-year relationship with the Defendant on grounds of misuse of private information be extended until trial or further order. The Claimant was held to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the information: he was not a public figure and their relationship was a secret. The Defendant's only apparent justification for publication was to extort money from the Claimant, and it is well-recognised that blackmail represents a misuse of free-speech rights. The Court was therefore satisfied that the Claimant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed at trial (per s.12(3), Human Rights Act 1998). 

Ofcom – illegal harms

Ofcom has opened an enforcement programme to oversee the efforts by online platforms to prevent the spread of illegal intimate images online. Online platforms were told to either implement automated technology in place known as "hash matching" to tackle the issue or prove that their systems/processes could prevent the spread of such images by other equally effective means in accordance with s.10 Online Safety Act 2023 by the end of September. Ofcom also plans to consult on updating its Illegal Harms Codes of Practice to reflect the recent amendments to the OSA to require platforms to remove non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours of being reported (see ss.100-1 Crime and Policing Act 2026).

Media practitioners on the up

Congratulations to Aidan Eardley KC on his recent appointment as a full time High Court Judge in the King's Bench Division. Congratulations also to Lord Justice Warby (who readers will no doubt know was the inaugural Judge in Charge of the Media and Communications List when at the High Court) who has been appointed President of the King's Bench Division.

Quote of the fortnight

"… the absence of evidence of identifiable and measurable reputational consequences does not mean that the publication caused little or no harm. The threshold of serious harm has been crossed. The allegations were allegations of fraud and professional dishonesty against a practising solicitor and therefore struck at the core of the Claimant's professional reputation. Once serious harm to reputation is established, the award cannot be merely nominal. The starting point must be a low five-figure sum or thereabouts. That starting point must, however, be moderated to reflect the limited evidence as to the scale and impact of publication."
Deputy Master Marzec, [40], Conroy v Stojek [2026] EWHC 2429 (KB)