A new US federal appeals court decision has confirmed that Zia Chishti’s 2025 settlement with The Telegraph did not overturn or rescind the separate arbitration award issued in favour of former Afiniti employee Tatiana Spottiswoode.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of Chishti’s lawsuit against Spottiswoode, her lawyers and other defendants.
The decision rejected every claim before the appellate court, including defamation, false light, breach of contract and related causes of action.
It also left the 2019 arbitration award untouched and upheld the dismissal of Chishti’s request to have it rescinded.
The distinction is important because Chishti and his wife made public statements after settling libel proceedings against The Telegraph in March 2025. They presented that settlement as evidence that Chishti had been vindicated and that the allegations made against him were false.
The US appellate court did not review the Telegraph settlement and made no finding about its terms or legal effect in the United Kingdom.
However, the court’s judgment demonstrates that the settlement did not reverse the outcome of the separate arbitration proceedings involving Spottiswoode.
The case before the Washington, D.C. courts focused primarily on Spottiswoode’s 2021 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.
Spottiswoode had been subpoenaed to testify during congressional consideration of legislation concerning mandatory arbitration in workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment disputes.
Her testimony discussed allegations that had previously been considered during arbitration proceedings. Congress subsequently enacted legislation allowing individuals bringing sexual assault or sexual harassment claims to reject forced arbitration in qualifying cases.
Chishti sued Spottiswoode and her attorneys after the hearing, alleging that her testimony and related public statements damaged his reputation and violated confidentiality restrictions arising from the arbitration.
The district court dismissed the lawsuit in September 2024, describing it as “a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to undo the outcome of an arbitration that rejected Chishti’s account of events and ruled in Spottiswoode’s favour.”
The appellate court affirmed that decision.
It ruled that statements made by Spottiswoode to Congress were absolutely privileged because they were provided pursuant to a subpoena and were relevant to pending legislation.
The court further determined that statements made to The Telegraph after the hearing, as well as posts on social media, were protected opinions or privileged reports relating to an official congressional proceeding.
Chishti’s breach of contract claims were also rejected. The court found that several alleged disclosures did not amount to violations of the applicable arbitration protective orders.
It also held that legislative privilege applied to Spottiswoode’s provision of the arbitration award to the House Judiciary Committee after the committee chairman requested it for inclusion in the congressional record.
The remaining tort claims were dismissed because they arose from the same allegedly defamatory conduct and could not be used to avoid the legal protections applicable to defamation claims.
The ruling adds to Chishti’s legal difficulties in the United States.
In separate proceedings, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that several claims pursued against TRG entities had been released under a 2022 settlement agreement.
The New York court also found that transfers of assets to Chishti’s spouse were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and ordered assets to be turned over to TRG to satisfy an arbitration award.
