Ranger v Joshi: High Court rules "denigrate" in settlement undertaking need not involve inaccuracy

The High Court has held that an undertaking not to "denigrate" given in settlement of defamation and harassment proceedings bears its ordinary meaning and is not confined to statements that are unfair, unreasonable or inaccurate. The court granted a narrowly framed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from republishing press coverage critical of the claimant.

In Lord Raminder Singh Ranger v Poonam Joshi [2026] EWHC 2451 (KB), Richard Spearman KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the King's Bench Division, lifted the stay contained in a Tomlin Order of July 2023 to enforce the parties' mutual undertaking that they "will not denigrate each other and/or pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of the other".

Background

Lord Ranger, a Conservative peer, brought libel and harassment proceedings against Ms Joshi, a journalist, in 2022. Ms Joshi had separately complained to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, who found that Lord Ranger's conduct amounted to bullying and harassment, while also criticising Ms Joshi's own conduct in what were described as ill-tempered exchanges on both sides. The dispute was settled following mediation in May 2023, with both parties represented by specialist media lawyers.

Ms Joshi subsequently posted nine links on social media to press articles. These reported the Commissioner's findings, the annulment of Lord Ranger's CBE, and his later attendance at a Conservative Party fundraising dinner. Ms Joshi filed no evidence in response to the application.

Meaning of "denigrate"

The defendant argued that "denigrate" necessarily involves unfairness, unreasonableness or inaccuracy. She relied on the surrounding context, including the use of the word in the Commissioner's report, its pairing with harassment in the same undertaking, and the privilege carve-out in a separate undertaking concerning the pleaded defamatory imputations.

The judge rejected each of these arguments. The ordinary meaning of "denigrate" is "blacken, belittle, disparage the character or reputation of, defame", which is wider than "defame". Following RSM International v Harrison and Pertemps Medical Group v Ladak, a statement may denigrate whether or not it is accurate. Adopting the approach in Network Ten v van Onselen, the court emphasised that this was a claim for breach of contract, not a defamation case.

The contextual arguments did not assist the defendant. The purpose of the settlement was to end the antagonism between the parties, and a qualified undertaking would have allowed the defendant to repeat any criticism she maintained was fair. The report used "denigrated" only to describe one effect of bullying, which did not make the two concepts equivalent. The words "and/or" created separate, cumulative obligations. There was no tension with the privilege carve-out, which addressed a known set of existing imputations. The court also dismissed the argument that the claimant should have sought a non-disparagement clause, observing that it was the defendant who was seeking qualifications she had not negotiated.

The dispute resolution clause

The defendant relied on a clause requiring mediation and then arbitration, but only after engaging fully with the merits. The judge held that she could not rely on the clause while declining to invoke it, describing this as approbating and reprobating.

Relief

Applying Mionis v Democratic Press SA, the court held that it would require a strong case to refuse enforcement of a settlement freely reached with expert legal advice. Given the repeated publications, correspondence refusing to comply, and the absence of evidence of any intention to desist, an injunction was appropriate.

However, the court declined to grant the broad order sought, which would simply have prohibited denigration generally, on the ground that it lacked the clarity required where committal is a risk. The injunction instead restrains republication of the nine posts and material to similar effect, and requires their deletion. A quotation attributed to the defendant criticising the Conservative Party was held not to denigrate the claimant.

The judge concluded that the order would place only a limited fetter on the defendant's freedom of expression, as it does not restrict her original journalism.