A High Court judge who gave summary judgment dismissing libel and misuse of private information claims against a former boxer has said she did so to ‘avoid protracted costly and painful court proceedings’.
Deputy High Court judge Susie Alegre said it was ‘clear that the hurt is real on both sides, but this claim is not the right vehicle to address it’. Neither claim brought by Olympian gold medalist Nicola Adams’ mother Denver Adams, referred to as Dee in the judgment, had a realistic prospect of success, the judge added.
Denver Dorsetra Adams v Amazon Digital UK Ltd centres on libel and misuse of private information claims over a documentary about boxer Nicola Adams. Amazon, which published the film, sought summary judgment.
Referring to the libel claim, the judge said: ‘There was no serious challenge to the defence of honest opinion, rather it seemed more like a continuation of what is clearly a highly charged family conflict. It is not for this court to decide who is right or wrong in the wider family situation. But it is clear to me that the claimant has no prospect of defeating the defendant’s defence of honest opinion at trial and therefore I grant summary judgment to the defendant on this aspect of the libel claim.’
On the alleged misuse of private information, the judge said Dee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. She added: ‘It seems clear that the underlying reason for the [misuse of private information] claim is the claimant’s concerns about damage to her reputation and the family rift rather than a sudden desire for privacy in relation to information that had already been widely shared in the public domain.’
Granting summary judgment in both the libel and misuse of private information claim, the judge said: ‘I hope that granting summary judgment in favour of the defendant in both the libel and MOPI claims in this case will help to avoid protracted costly and painful court proceedings in this case.
‘It is clear that the relationship between Dee and Nicola has become extremely fraught. But airing this conflict in court is unlikely to help either of them…It is clear that the hurt is real on both sides, but this claim is not the right vehicle to address it.’
