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 are expressions of opinion, not fact, and thus only capable of being comment. However, the comment is not on a matter of public interest, so the defence of honest comment cannot proceed. Passages 4 and 5 of the Reply are struck out. The slander claim in respect of The Graham Norton Show does not meet the seriousness threshold under Section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952 and cannot be left to the jury.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2572
Parties
Claimant: Peter Andre; Defendant: Katie Price
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel and Slander Claim / Pre Trial Rulings on Pleadings and Defences
Outcome
Defence of honest comment struck out for lack of public interest; slander claim under Section 2 not viable; certain Reply passages struck out.
Legal Topics
Libel, Slander, Honest Comment, Public Interest, Malice, Privacy, Freedom of Expression
Defamation Media Law Human Rights Libel Slander Honest Comment Public Interest Malice +2 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

Libel and Slander Claim / Pre Trial Rulings on Pleadings and Defences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are comment or fact
  2. 2 Whether passages in the Reply should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether the comment is on a matter of public interest

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in Heat magazine are expressions of opinion, not fact, and thus only capable of being comment. However, the comment is not on a matter of public interest, so the defence of honest comment cannot proceed. Passages 4 and 5 of the Reply are struck out. The slander claim in respect of The Graham Norton Show does not meet the seriousness threshold under Section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952 and cannot be left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Defence of honest comment struck out for lack of public interest; slander claim under Section 2 not viable; certain Reply passages struck out.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Reply struck out
  • Defence of honest comment cannot proceed