Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor [2007] EWHC 2735 (QB) (23 November 2007)

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern v Houston & Anor [2007] EWHC 2735 (QB) (23 November 2007)

The article was not protected by qualified privilege because the defendants failed to act as responsible journalists: they did not seek or include the claimant's response to serious allegations, relied solely on sources hostile to the claimant, and did not verify key facts. The reportage defence failed because the article did not neutrally or fairly present both sides of the controversy but instead heavily tilted against the claimant and included assertions not made at the reported press conference.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2735
Parties
Claimant: Prince Radu of Hohenzollern; First Defendant: Marco Houston; Second Defendant: Sena Julia Publicatus Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issue on Defence of Privilege
Outcome
Defence of qualified privilege (including reportage and responsible journalism) rejected.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Responsible Journalism, Reynolds Defence, Reportage, Public Interest, Libel, Freedom of Expression, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Defamation Tort Qualified Privilege Responsible Journalism Reynolds Defence Reportage Public Interest +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern

Claimant

Marco Houston

First Defendant

Sena Julia Publicatus Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Preliminary Issue on Defence of Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article was protected by qualified privilege under the principles of responsible journalism or reportage as set out in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and subsequent case law.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants acted as responsible journalists in publishing the defamatory allegations without seeking or including the claimant's response.

Ratio Decidendi

The article was not protected by qualified privilege because the defendants failed to act as responsible journalists: they did not seek or include the claimant's response to serious allegations, relied solely on sources hostile to the claimant, and did not verify key facts. The reportage defence failed because the article did not neutrally or fairly present both sides of the controversy but instead heavily tilted against the claimant and included assertions not made at the reported press conference.

Court Disposition

Defence of qualified privilege (including reportage and responsible journalism) rejected.

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue to trial on remaining issues, including justification.