Mediation, Media Disputes and Non-Denigration Clauses: Lessons from Lord Ranger v Joshi [2026] EWHC 2451 (KB)

Lord Ranger v Joshi [2026] EWHC 2451 (KB), 25 September 2026

Mediation is often described as a way of ending a dispute. In reputation and media disputes, where the parties are likely to continue speaking about one another, a settlement must usually do something more: it must provide a workable framework for what happens next. The recent decision in Lord Ranger v Joshi illustrates why.

Background

The underlying proceedings involved claims in libel and harassment arising from a highly acrimonious dispute and publications on social media. The parties mediated in May 2023 and reached a Settlement Agreement. The proceedings were then stayed by a Tomlin Order.

The mediated settlement included:

• mutual apologies;
• provisions concerning the removal of publications;
• confidentiality provisions;
• undertakings relating to future publications;
• a mutual undertaking that the parties would not “denigrate each other and/or pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of the other”; and
• clause 15.1, providing that a dispute arising in connection with the Settlement Agreement would be referred first to mediation and, if mediation was unsuccessful, to arbitration.

In their agreed apologies the parties stated:

“All parties consider this matter to be closed.”

Further publications nevertheless followed, and led to an application to enforce the settlement.

It is important to be clear about what this does and does not show. The 2023 mediation did not fail. It settled substantial litigation. What the later proceedings demonstrate is the importance of durable settlement design: the terms agreed on the day will govern the parties’ conduct long after the mediation room has emptied.

The central issue: what does “denigrate” mean?

The case became principally concerned with the meaning and enforcement of the word “denigrate”. The Defendant argued, amongst other things, that denigration necessarily involved an element such as unfairness, unreasonableness or inaccuracy.

The Court rejected that construction. Richard Spearman KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that the ordinary meaning of “denigrate” included blackening, belittling or disparaging a person’s character or reputation, and that it was wider than defamation. Importantly, a statement could denigrate somebody even though it was true.

The Court also emphasised that this was not, at this stage, a defamation claim. It was a claim for breach of contract. The question was not whether the publications were defamatory, but whether they breached what the parties had agreed.

The Court found breaches of the non-denigration undertaking and ultimately granted a permanent injunction, although in narrower and more precise terms than had originally been sought.

Why behavioural terms become contentious

Behavioural provisions are common in settlements of reputation, employment, partnership and family business disputes. Terms such as the following often look straightforward when agreed late in a long mediation day:

• denigrate;
• disparage;
• derogatory;
• adverse comment; and
• confidentiality.

Each can later become the subject of dispute. One party may understand a non-denigration clause as a prohibition on false or unfair attacks; the other may understand it as a prohibition on any disparaging comment at all. Ranger v Joshi shows that the ordinary meaning of such a word may be wider than one party expected, and that truth will not necessarily be an answer.

The mediator’s role: reality-testing the settlement

A mediator does not ordinarily draft the parties’ legal agreement for them. That is the responsibility of the parties and their lawyers. A mediator can, however, usefully reality-test the proposed settlement and encourage the parties and their advisers to consider how behavioural provisions will work in foreseeable real-life situations.

A question of the following kind might be raised at mediation:

“What happens if, six months from now, a newspaper publishes an entirely accurate article about this dispute? Can either party repost it, link to it, comment upon it or discuss it publicly?”

Questions like this are not intended to reopen the deal. They help ensure that both parties understand the bargain in the same way, and reduce the risk of a second dispute about the settlement itself.

Drafting a non-denigration or non-disparagement provision

Depending on the circumstances, lawyers may wish expressly to address:

• truthful statements;
• repetition of material already in the public domain;
• hyperlinks and reposts;
• social-media sharing;
• press enquiries;
• statutory or regulatory reporting;
• communications required by law;
• privileged publications;
• statements to professional advisers and close family;
• future events unrelated to the original dispute; and
• whether the restriction is permanent or time limited.

None of these points is exotic. Each is foreseeable at the time of settlement, and each is easier to agree while the parties are negotiating than to litigate afterwards.

The ADR clause: clause 15.1

Clause 15.1 of the Settlement Agreement provided:

“If any dispute arises in connection with this Agreement, the parties agree that the dispute will be referred to mediation, and if mediation is unsuccessful to arbitration, such arbitrator to be appointed by agreement of the parties, failing which the arbitrator shall be appointed by the President of the Law Society.”

The position that arose was unusual. Neither party ultimately invoked clause 15.1 to require the dispute to go through that process before the Court determined the substantive issues. The Defendant nevertheless relied upon the Claimant’s failure to comply with clause 15.1 as part of her argument against immediate enforcement.

The Court rejected that approach. The Defendant had engaged with the merits and had asked the Court to determine the meaning of “denigrate”, rather than herself insisting upon the contractual ADR procedure.

The enforceability of contractual ADR procedures depends on their certainty, as the Court of Appeal discussed in Kajima Construction Europe (UK) Ltd v Children’s Ark Partnership Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 292. But certainty of drafting is only part of the picture. The practical distinction illustrated by Ranger v Joshi is that having an ADR clause in a settlement agreement is not necessarily the same as actually invoking and relying upon it when a subsequent dispute arises.

Urgent relief and tiered dispute-resolution clauses

Settlements involving reputation, confidentiality or publication raise a particular drafting consideration. Many later disputes will be suitable for a tiered process:

ordinary disputes → mediation → arbitration

But a publication, once made, can spread quickly. Parties may therefore want an express carve-out permitting either party to seek urgent interim or injunctive relief from the court where necessary, while leaving other disputes to the agreed mediation and arbitration route.

This is not to suggest that any particular alternative wording would have changed the result in Ranger v Joshi. It is a drafting consideration arising from the issues the case illustrates.

Freedom of expression and the finality of settlements

Injunctions restraining publication engage Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Mionis v Democratic Press SA [2017] EWCA Civ 1194; [2018] QB 662, the Court of Appeal considered the enforcement of a settlement agreement restricting publication.

Article 10 remains important where injunctive relief affects freedom of expression. However, considerable weight is given to a settlement freely entered into with legal advice, particularly where the litigation itself involved Article 10 considerations. That reflects the public-policy importance of the finality of settlements, and the principle that parties should ordinarily be held to bargains freely made in settlement of litigation.

That does not mean Article 10 can simply be ignored or entirely contracted out of. It does mean that a party who has agreed, with advice, to restrict what they say should expect the court to take that agreement seriously.

Five practical lessons

1. Define behavioural obligations carefully

Words such as “denigrate” may have a wider effect than parties expect.

2. Reality-test future scenarios at the mediation

Consider newspapers, social media, reposting, hyperlinks, interviews and future public developments.

3. Make exceptions explicit

If truth, privilege, regulatory reporting, legal obligations or other communications are to be permitted, say so clearly.

4. Design the dispute-resolution machinery for the type of dispute

A mediation/arbitration clause may need to coexist with a mechanism for genuinely urgent injunctive relief.

5. Treat the settlement as the beginning of the parties’ future relationship

The objective is not simply to dispose of today’s proceedings but, where possible, to reduce the scope for tomorrow’s dispute about the settlement itself.

Conclusion

Mediation converts disputed legal rights and allegations into agreed contractual obligations. Ranger v Joshi demonstrates both the strength of that process and the importance of precision: once parties have compromised litigation, the court may hold them closely to the bargain they made.

ProMediate’s commercial mediation service covers civil and commercial disputes of all kinds, and mediations can take place in person or online.

[]Source: Lord Ranger v Joshi [2026] EWHC 2451 (KB). ↩