Lord Raminder Singh Ranger v Poonam Joshi

A contractual undertaking not to “denigrate” is given its ordinary meaning. It covers blackening or belittling a person’s character or reputation and is wider than defamation. A breach does not require falsity, unfairness or unreasonableness. Where the undertaking is linked by “and/or” to a promise not to harass, the two are separate and cumulative. Settlement context may inform construction, but cannot add qualifications inconsistent with the language and purpose of the bargain. Freedom of expression must be considered when enforcing a settlement, while finality and the public interest in holding parties to their agreements weigh strongly in favour of enforcement. Repeated breaches and no evidence of future compliance may justify a permanent injunction, but its terms must be clear and tailored to proven breaches.

The parties’ earlier defamation and harassment dispute was settled by a Settlement Agreement dated 31 May 2023 and a Tomlin Order dated 3 July 2023. The agreement contained a mutual undertaking not to denigrate one another or pursue conduct amounting to harassment. The defendant subsequently published nine social-media posts linking or repeating reports concerning the claimant. The claimant applied to lift the stay and enforce the non-denigration undertaking by injunction and deletion orders. By the hearing, the application was confined to that undertaking. The defendant disputed the meaning of “denigrate”, relied on the agreement’s dispute-resolution clause, and opposed injunctive relief. She filed no evidence. The central issues were construction, breach, and the appropriate form of enforcement.

The application was granted in part. The court enforced the non-denigration undertaking, rejected a stay based on the dispute-resolution clause, and refused a stay of the deletion and compliance orders pending permission to appeal. The Guardian quotation attributed to the defendant was not denigratory, but the nine publications identified in the order were.

1. Meaning. “Denigrate” ordinarily means to blacken or belittle, or to disparage a person’s character or reputation. It is wider than defamation because it includes belittling. Accuracy, truth, fairness and reasonableness are not necessary elements. The court relied on the reasoning in RSM International Ltd v Harrison [2015] EWHC 2252 (QB), Pertemps Medical Group Limited v Ladak [2020] EWHC 163 (QB) and Network Ten Pty v van Onselen [2023] NSWSC 829.
2. Context and separate obligations. The settlement background supported an intention to end the parties’ antagonistic interaction, but did not justify importing a limitation to unfair, unreasonable or inaccurate publications. The words “and/or” separated the denigration and harassment limbs of the undertaking. They imposed cumulative obligations, and denigration was not confined to harassment-level conduct. The APOC undertaking addressed different subject matter. Any possible overlap was construed in favour of the less restrictive reading.
3. Dispute resolution. The defendant had engaged with the merits and had not invoked the mediation and arbitration clause. Her reliance on the claimant’s non-compliance with that clause therefore created no separate basis for a stay. The need for an injunction remained a discretionary question determined on the evidence, correspondence and conduct of the parties.
4. Relief. The approach in Mionis v Democratic Press SA [2018] QB 662 was closely analogous. The voluntary settlement, legal advice, and public interest in finality strongly favoured enforcement, although freedom of expression remained relevant. Repeated publications, the defendant’s refusal to desist, and her failure to provide evidence of future compliance justified injunctive relief. The principles in Ranger v Pycraft [2021] EWHC 502 (QB) and ZAM v CFW [2013] EMLR 27 were applied or considered.
5. Form of order. A general injunction against denigrating the claimant would be insufficiently clear and could expose the defendant to committal without knowing what conduct was prohibited. The court instead restrained publication of the nine publications, or words or information to the same or similar effect, and required their deletion, subject to exceptions for the judgment, order and specified confidential communications.