Andre v Price [2010] EWHC 2572 (QB) (11 October 2010)

Andre v Price [2010] EWHC 2572 (QB) (11 October 2010)

The words complained of in Heat magazine were opinion, not fact, and thus only capable of being honest comment; however, the subject matter (the Claimant's relationship with his stepson H) was not a matter of public interest, so the defence of honest comment could not proceed. Certain passages in the Reply (paragraphs 4 and 5) were struck out as irrelevant or inadmissible. The words complained of in The Graham Norton Show were not calculated to disparage the Claimant in his profession within the meaning of section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952, so that part of the claim could not proceed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2572 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Andre; Defendant: Katie Price
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel and Slander) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Pleadings
Outcome
Interlocutory rulings: Defence of honest comment struck out for lack of public interest; certain Reply passages struck out; slander claim on The Graham Norton Show not to proceed to jury.
Legal Topics
Honest Comment Defence, Public Interest, Malice in Defamation, Striking Out Pleadings, Article 8 and 10 ECHR, Section 2 Defamation Act 1952
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Honest Comment Defence Public Interest Malice in Defamation Striking Out Pleadings Article 8 and 10 ECHR +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Andre

Claimant

Katie Price

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Issues and Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are comment or fact for the purposes of the honest comment defence
  2. 2 Whether certain passages in the Reply should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the words complained of are on a matter of public interest for the honest comment defence

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in Heat magazine were opinion, not fact, and thus only capable of being honest comment; however, the subject matter (the Claimant's relationship with his stepson H) was not a matter of public interest, so the defence of honest comment could not proceed. Certain passages in the Reply (paragraphs 4 and 5) were struck out as irrelevant or inadmissible. The words complained of in The Graham Norton Show were not calculated to disparage the Claimant in his profession within the meaning of section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952, so that part of the claim could not proceed.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory rulings: Defence of honest comment struck out for lack of public interest; certain Reply passages struck out; slander claim on The Graham Norton Show not to proceed to jury.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reply struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
  • Defence of honest comment not available as the subject matter is not of public interest