Andre v Price

Andre v Price

The words complained of in Heat magazine are opinion, not fact, and the defence of honest comment is not available because the subject matter (the Claimant's relationship with his stepson) is not a matter of public interest. Certain passages in the Reply are struck out as irrelevant or inadmissible. The slander claim regarding The Graham Norton Show fails under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952 as the words are not calculated to disparage the Claimant in his profession.

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 Ruling on Pleadings and Scope of Defences
Outcome
Defence of honest comment struck out; certain passages in Reply struck out; slander claim under section 2 not to proceed to jury.
Legal Topics
Honest Comment Defence, Public Interest Requirement, Malice, Striking Out Pleadings, Article 8 and 10 ECHR, Section 2 Defamation Act 1952
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Honest Comment Defence Public Interest Requirement Malice 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Andre

Claimant

Katie Price

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel and Slander) / Pre Trial Interlocutory Ruling on Pleadings and Scope of Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are fact or comment/opinion
  2. 2 Whether the defence of honest comment is available
  3. 3 Whether the subject matter is a matter of public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in Heat magazine are opinion, not fact, and the defence of honest comment is not available because the subject matter (the Claimant's relationship with his stepson) is not a matter of public interest. Certain passages in the Reply are struck out as irrelevant or inadmissible. The slander claim regarding The Graham Norton Show fails under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952 as the words are not calculated to disparage the Claimant in his profession.

Court Disposition

Defence of honest comment struck out; certain passages in Reply struck out; slander claim under section 2 not to proceed to jury.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reply struck out.
  • Defence of honest comment not available as subject matter not of public interest.