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 did not qualify for the reportage defence as it failed to neutrally and fairly report both sides of the controversy, omitted the claimant's response, and included allegations not made at the press conference. The defendants did not exercise responsible journalism, having failed to verify the allegations or seek the claimant's comment. Therefore, the defence of qualified privilege failed.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 2735 (QB)
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 / Preliminary Issue on Defence of Privilege
Outcome
Defence of qualified privilege (including reportage and Reynolds responsible journalism) rejected; claim to proceed.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Responsible Journalism, Reynolds Defence, Reportage, Public Interest, Libel
Media Law Defamation Tort Law Qualified Privilege Responsible Journalism Reynolds Defence Reportage Public Interest +1 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Radu of Hohenzollern

Claimant

Marco Houston

First Defendant

Sena Julia Publicatus Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Preliminary Issue on Defence of Privilege

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article was protected by qualified privilege under the Reynolds defence or reportage principles
  2. 2 Whether the defendants exercised responsible journalism in publishing the defamatory allegations
  3. 3 Whether the article fairly and neutrally reported a public controversy or adopted one side

Ratio Decidendi

The article did not qualify for the reportage defence as it failed to neutrally and fairly report both sides of the controversy, omitted the claimant's response, and included allegations not made at the press conference. The defendants did not exercise responsible journalism, having failed to verify the allegations or seek the claimant's comment. Therefore, the defence of qualified privilege failed.

Court Disposition

Defence of qualified privilege (including reportage and Reynolds responsible journalism) rejected; claim to proceed.

Orders

  • Defendants' plea of privilege dismissed; case to proceed to trial on remaining issues.