The Hilary Legal Term ends on Wednesday 16 April 2025.  The short Easter Term will begin on Tuesday 29 April 2025 and run until Friday 23 May 2025.

The libel trial in the case of Noel Clarke v Guardian News and Media concluded on Friday 11 April 2025 after a trial lasting 6 weeks.  The Standard had report of the claimant’s closing submissions entitled “Noel Clarke ‘casualty’ of media MeToo ‘purge’, court hears“.  The Guardian had a report of its closing submissions entitled Noel Clarke ‘precisely the man’ depicted in Guardian’s reporting, high court told.  Steyn J reserved judgment.

The Investigatory Powers tribunal has ruled that a legal dispute between the government and Apple over data access cannot be kept secret, siding with civil liberties groups and media outlets. The case concerns Apple’s refusal to create a “backdoor” into its Advanced Data Protection (ADP) system, which can currently only be accessed by users. The Home Office argues it needs access under the Investigatory Powers Act, but Apple and privacy advocates warn this could compromise security. Despite government claims that revealing even the case’s existence could harm national security, the tribunal upheld the principle of open justice. The BBC, Guardian, Reuters, Press Gazette, The Register and The Law Society Gazette covered the ruling. Human rights organisation, Liberty, published a press release. The judgement is available in full here.

The High Court has rejected journalist, Dan Wootton’s application to lift the anonymity order protecting the claimant’s (pseudonymised as YXN) identity in civil proceedings brought against him for alleged deceit, privacy violations, and psychological harm. The claimant alleges that Wooton posed as a woman named “Maria Joseph” in 2010 to deceive his former colleague into sending explicit images. The judge rejected the application, citing the risk of serious harm if it were revealed. The Press Gazette reported on the ruling.

On 8 April 2025, the ECtHR handed down judgement in the case of Green v The United Kingdom (Application no. 22077/19). The court held that there had been no violation of the Applicant’s right to privacy after a member of the House of Lords named him in Parliament as the subject of sexual harassment allegations, despite an existing court injunction. The Court ruled that it is up to the UK and its Parliament to determine how to regulate parliamentary privilege, and that imposing further controls would undermine parliamentary autonomy, which had already been considered and rejected by the legislature.

The Brett Wilson Media Law blog has a summaries of the blackmail and harassment judgement handed down last month in the case of HXZ v NMX [2025] EWHC 697 (KB) and the issue of whether a trade union can sue libel in the case of Prospect v Evans [2025] EWHC 499 (KB).

Internet and Social Media

The Federal Trade Commission’s major antitrust case against Meta begins this week in Washington, following a six-year investigation into whether Meta illegally acquired Instagram and WhatsApp to eliminate competition. The FTC argues that Meta’s “buy or bury” strategy aimed to maintain monopoly power in social media, citing internal emails and is seeking to force the company to divest both apps, resulting in a corporate breakup of the companies. Meta denies wrongdoing, claiming its acquisitions were lawful and approved at the time, and insists it now faces strong competition from platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and X. NPR and The New York Times covered the story.

Data privacy and data protection

The Irish Data Protection Commission has launched a fresh investigation into Elon Musk’s AI company xAI, focusing on whether its Grok model unlawfully processed EU users’ personal data under GDPR rules. The probe follows concerns that Grok may have generated user biographies of X users without proper transparency or consent. Although a previous DPC inquiry led X to delete EU user data used to train Grok and commit to stopping such processing, new complaints from consumer groups allege continued GDPR violations. X could face significant fines if found in breach. EurActiv, Politico, Reuters, TechCrunch and the Wall Street Journal covered the investigation.

Surveillance

Investigative journalist Dónal MacIntyre has asked the Investigatory Powers Tribunal to investigate claims that he was placed under surveillance by the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) while probing the death of Noah Donohoe, a biracial Catholic teenager from Belfast, Computer Weekly reports. MacIntyre claims that the surveillance began in August 2023, coinciding with his investigation into the case. His concerns grew after a suspicious car break-in and a tip-off from a reporter at the Belfast Telegraph that police monitored his social media and messages with Donohoe’s mother. The PSNI later admitted to collecting publicly available Twitter data but denied accessing confidential journalistic material.

Newspaper Journalism and regulation

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has decided not to launch a formal standards investigation into the Jewish Chronicle, despite concerns over allegedly fabricated articles about the Gaza war written by a freelance journalist. IPSO noted that the publication had already removed the articles, issued an apology, and implemented changes to its editorial processes, citing staff absences as a factor in the lapse. Read IPSO’s statement here. The Press Gazette and The Telegraph reported on the decision.

The Brett Wilson Media Law blog has a summary of the High Court decision in GB News Limited v OFCOM [2025] EWHC 460 in which the court ruled against two Ofcom decisions in favour of GB News, finding that the employment of Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg as a presenter whilst he was a MP was not a breach of the Broadcasting Code.

IPSO

Statements in open court and apologies

We are not aware of any statements in open court and apologies last week.

New Issued cases

There were two misuse of private information claims, a defamation (libel and slander) claim and two miscellaneous claims filed on the media and communications list last week.

Last week in the courts

As already mentioned, the trial of the defamation and data protection case of Clarke v Guardian QB-2022-001397 concluded before Steyn J at the end of its sixth week.

On Monday 7 April, Fordham J handed down judgement in the misuse of private information (MPI) case of Mullen v Lyles [2025] EWHC 645 (KB) in favour of the Appellant. The case concerned a Whatsapp message and two Instagram messages that the defendant sent to business associates and which the claimant alleges mischaracterised his private sexual conduct as forceful and unwanted. The claimant appealed the order of Deputy Master Marzec, who struck out his MPI claim, having placed particular emphasis on the issues of truth and criminal conduct [18]. The issue before Fordham J was whether the MPI claim, put at its highest, was bound to fail. The court held that while the issue of truth is generally irrelevant in a MPI claim, it can be central to cases of alleged criminal conduct and, as such, the first instance decision erred in treating the issue of truth as irrelevant as a “rigid exclusionary rule” [29]. The court also emphasised the complex factors in the case, including the motivations of the communications and their context. Fordham J ruled in favour of the claimant and reversed the first instance decision to strike out the claim, allowing the MPI claim to proceed. Solicitors Journal and ICLG have a summary of the ruling.

On Wednesday 9 April, Lavender J handed down judgement on preliminary meaning in the defamation case of Aluko v Barton [2025] EWHC 853 (KB). The case was brought by broadcaster and former footballer, Eniola Aluko, against former footballer, Joey Barton in relation two posts on X. The court held that the first post had the defamatory inneuendo meaning that the claimant “cynically sought to exploit her status as an alleged victim of racism and bullying” and that the claim was unwarranted and predictable. It was held to be a statement of opinion. The second post held the meaning that “the claimant was a hypocrite for saying that the furlough scheme created a do-nothing mentality and a culture of entitlement when she was the beneficiary of dodgy money obtained by her father.” It was held to contain statements of fact and opinion. 5RB and the Brett Wilson Media Law Blog have a summary.

On Thursday 10 April, the Aidan Eardley KC handed down judgement on applications to strike out the claim in the case of Scalora v Clarion Housing Association Ltd [2025] EWHC 882 (KB). The claimant, a tenant, brought a libel claim against the defendant, a social housing provider, in relation to comments made by the defendant and published in the Sun Online which contain serious allegations of fraud against the claimant. Similar articles were published in MyLondon and The Mirror Online. The defendant sought a strike out or summary judgment on the claim on limitation grounds.

The court granted summary judgement against the claimant on his claim in respect of the Sun Online article on the basis that there was no realistic prospect of the Court exercising its discretion to exclude the limitation period, given the length of the delay and lack of explanation. However, the court refused the application to strike out or grant summary judgement for the MyLondon and Mirror Online articles, as there was a realistic prospect of the Claimant demonstrating that the “defendant’s statement reached a wider and different cohort of publishes” as a result of those articles [61].

On the same day, Cavanagh J dismissed the appeal in relation to costs in the case of Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB). Following the trial, the claimant was ordered to pay 90% of the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis. At a hearing to determine preliminary issues in respect of costs, the Judge held that neither the Defendant nor her solicitors had conducted themselves improperly or unreasonably for the purposes of CPR 44.11(1)(b) and therefore were not subjected to a sanction disallowing costs. The claimant appealed this decision; the Court dismissed the appeal on the basis that the Judge was entitled to reach the conclusion at which he arrived.

Media law in other jurisdictions

Asia

Earlier this month, Radio Free Asia (RFA) suspended its shortwave broadcasts in Mandarin, Tibetan, and Lao after U.S.-funded relay stations were shut down following an executive order by President Trump ending federal support for the U.S. Agency for Global Media. As a result, millions of people have been cut off from a key source of independent news, especially in regions like Tibet where access to information is tightly controlled. Reporters Without Borders and the International Federation of Journalists have condemned the move and called on Congress to reverse the funding decision.

Australia

On 10 April 2025, the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgement in the case of Nikolic v Twitter International Company [2025] FCA 345. The case concerned defamation proceedings brought in 2019 which were settled in a written settlement agreement in 2021; the settlement did not require the Respondent to remove the allegedly defamatory material from X and the Applications sought their removal. The Respondent claimed that it had not been served with the application and that it should be set aside in any case. In 2022, a judge ordered that the application be set aside, as it had not been duly served on the Respondent. The Applicant sought a review of the decision and an extension of time to bring the review. The Federal Court refused the applications due to an inadequate explanation of the delay [31], insufficient service [35] and the existence of the settlement agreement [38].

Canada

On 7 April 2025, the Supreme Court of Justice – Ontario handed down judgement in the case of Diffusart International et al. v. Robinson et al., 2025 ONSC 2151. The case concerned a dispute between competitors in the postering business in Ottawa. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants defamed their business by suggesting they engaged in questionable business practices, emailing their clients with disparaging remarks and distributing inappropriate posters about the company. The judge rejected the defendants’ application to dismiss the motion as a SLAPP, given that it was not necessary for the defendant to resort to personal character attacks in order to express her views, there was no evidence that the plaintiffs had previously used litigation to silence critics and there was no financial imbalance between both parties.

On 8 April 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia handed down judgement in the case of Beland v Cardy, 2025 BCSC 656. The plaintiffs sued the defendants, who were members of a rival community group, for defamation in relation to critical statements made on a Facebook group. The court dismissed the defendants’ application for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim under s4 of the Protection of Public Participation Act on the basis that the public interest in allowing the claim to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the defendants’ expressions.

On 10 April 2025, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal in the negligence and defamation case of Affleck v Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 2025 ONCA 267. The appellant claimed that the respondents had prevented her from seeing her mother at the retirement home she was living in and made defamatory statements about her. The trial judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the trial judge did not commit any error of law or err in her factual findings.

United States

A federal judge has allowed a defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump to proceed, brought by the Central Park Five—five Black and Hispanic men wrongly convicted in a 1989 rape case. The men allege Trump made false and damaging remarks about them during a 2024 presidential debate, falsely claiming they had killed someone and pleaded guilty. Although the judge dismissed their claim of intentional emotional distress, she ruled there was enough evidence to pursue the defamation case, with the plaintiffs seeking damages for reputational and emotional harm. Reuters, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, AP News, Courthouse News, MSNBC, The Hill, CBS News and The New Republic covered the ruling.

A Delaware judge has ruled that Newsmax aired defamatory statements about Dominion Voting Systems during its 2020 election coverage, ahead of a jury trial set to begin later this month. Dominion sued the network in 2021, alleging it spread baseless claims that its machines were rigged against Donald Trump. The judge found the statements were defamatory, and Dominion must now prove Newsmax acted with actual malice. Newsmax maintains it was reporting on public allegations and denies defaming Dominion, calling the lawsuit a threat to free speech. The New York Times and The Hill covered the judgement.

Research and Resources

Next week in the courts

On Monday 14 April 2025 Collins Rice J will hand down judgment in the case of Bridgen v Hancock, (heard 12 March 2025)

Reserved judgements

Clarke v Guardian News and Media, 4-7,10-14, 17-21, 24-28 and 31 March 2025, 1-4 and 11 April 2025 (Steyn J)

This Round Up was compiled by Jasleen Chaggar who is the Legal and Policy Officer at Big Brother Watch.