Background
Lord Ranger, a Conservative peer, sued journalist Poonam Joshi for libel and harassment after an acrimonious dispute involving social-media posts and complaints to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards and the Conservative Party. Following mediation, the parties settled in May 2023. Their settlement, incorporated into a Tomlin Order staying the proceedings, included mutual undertakings not to “denigrate each other and/or pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of the other.”
Joshi later posted or shared nine items on Facebook and X concerning findings that Ranger had bullied and harassed her, the annulment of his CBE, and his subsequent involvement with the Conservative Party. Ranger applied to lift the stay and enforce the non-denigration undertaking. By the hearing, he no longer pursued relief under the settlement’s separate harassment, non-encouragement, and publication undertakings.
Joshi filed no evidence. She argued principally that “denigrate” required some element of unfairness, unreasonableness, or inaccuracy, and that sharing accurate reporting did not breach the undertaking. She also relied on the settlement’s mediation-and-arbitration clause as a reason not to lift the stay or grant an injunction.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that “denigrate” bears its ordinary meaning: to blacken, belittle, disparage the character or reputation of, or defame. Denigration does not require falsity, unfairness, or unreasonableness. The undertaking was a contractual restriction distinct from defamation law and separate from the accompanying prohibition on harassment. Its purpose, viewed in the context of the settlement, was to end the parties’ antagonistic exchanges.
On that construction, all nine social-media publications breached Joshi’s undertaking. The court rejected her reliance on the dispute-resolution clause because she had engaged with the merits and had not herself sought referral to mediation or arbitration. Her repeated publications, refusal in correspondence to accept any breach, and failure to provide evidence promising future compliance justified injunctive relief.
The court lifted the stay for enforcement and granted a narrower injunction than Ranger had requested. It restrained Joshi from republishing the nine identified publications or disseminating words or information to the same or similar effect, subject to specified exceptions, and required deletion and confirmation by witness statement. The injunction did not cover a quotation in which Joshi called the Conservative Party’s renewed acceptance of Ranger “appalling and totally unethical,” because that criticism was directed at the party and did not denigrate Ranger.
Key Takeaways
- An unqualified promise not to “denigrate” can prohibit truthful or otherwise legally protected statements; denigration does not depend on falsity, unfairness, or unreasonableness.
- A non-denigration obligation is distinct from harassment and must be given independent contractual effect.
- Repeated breaches, denial of wrongdoing, and the absence of evidence promising future compliance can support a permanent injunction enforcing a settlement.
- An injunction must state clearly what conduct is prohibited, particularly because breach may expose the restrained party to committal proceedings.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that parties may contractually surrender rights to repeat adverse statements even when those statements might not be actionable in defamation. Courts will interpret such provisions according to their language and the settlement’s purpose, rather than importing defamation defenses or an implied requirement of inaccuracy.
It also illustrates how courts may enforce broad settlement obligations while protecting freedom of expression through precisely tailored relief. Here, the order targeted the publications proven to breach the agreement and materially similar repetitions, rather than imposing an open-ended prohibition on anything that might be characterized as denigrating.