Court throws out libel and privacy claims brought over Nicola Adams’ Amazon Prime documentary

In Adams v Amazon Digital UK Ltd  [2024] EWHC 3338 (KB), the defendant (‘Amazon’) obtained reverse summary  judgment in a claim for libel and misuse of private information (‘MOPI’).  The judgment demonstrates the court's willingness to resolve cases at an early stage, when appropriate and offers important guidance on the application of the defences of truth and honest opinion in libel claims.  It also offers insight into how the court will balance competing rights under the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) - in the context of MOPI and biographical documentaries.

Lioness, the Nicola Adams Story is a feature length documentary that follows the extraordinary life story of Nicola Adams OBE (‘Nicola’), the double Olympic medal winner and WBO boxing world champion, from the streets of Leeds to international boxing superstar (‘the Documentary’).  The Documentary was made available by Amazon on its Amazon Prime Video streaming platform and features lengthy interview footage with Nicola.

The Documentary includes scenes that touch on Nicola’s strained relationship with her mother, the Claimant Denver Dorsetra Adams (referred to as ‘Dee’ throughout the judgment).  It also refers, in general terms, to the domestic violence Nicola witnessed towards Dee and experienced herself, at the hands of her father.

Dee brought claims against Amazon for libel and MOPI.

The application

Amazon made an early application for reverse summary judgment in respect of both claims, on the grounds that:

1. the allegedly defamatory statements were unarguably true and/or reflected Nicola’s honestly held opinion, and
2. the allegedly private information was not private and/or the publication of the Documentary cannot be a misuse of private information because: Nicola has a right to talk about her own life; there is public interest in Nicola’s account of her life; and, the allegedly private information was already widely published.

Summary judgment test

The judge started out by repeating the explanation of the summary judgment test/principles set out in Easyair Ltd v Opal [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), which states that:

1. each claim must have a realistic rather than a fanciful prospect of success;
2. a realistic claim is one that is “more than merely arguable”; and
3. that in reaching its findings, the court must not conduct a “mini-trial”.

Easyair also warns that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that further evidence that could materially affect the outcome of the claim is likely to become available at trial, the court should be slow to determine the claim at the summary judgment stage.

At the same time, if a short point of law or construction arises, the court should "grasp the nettle and decide" the legal point, providing:

1. all necessary evidence for determining the question is available to the court, and
2. both parties have had sufficient opportunity to present their arguments on the issue.

In the present case, the judge considered that the range of evidence before her to be “extensive”.  It included, amongst other things, recent personal text messages, wide ranging media reports about Nicola's life, and a draft divorce petition dating back to the 1990s.

The extent of the evidence available, coupled with the narrow points in dispute, made it unlikely that a full trial would uncover any important new evidence that could change the outcome of the case.  The judge was satisfied that, on the evidence and arguments before her, neither claim had a real prospect of success.

The libel claim

Meaning

The libel claim related to abusive messages sent by Dee to Nicola, which are referenced in the Documentary.

The meaning was based on the meaning established in a separate claim brought by the Claimant, Denver Dorsetra Nicola v Associated Newspapers Limited  [2023] EWHC 1940 (KB).   In that claim, Dee had sued over articles published in The Mail on Sunday’s You! magazine and on the MailOnline.  The articles included some of the same language that Dee complained of in the Documentary,

Adopting Mrs Justice Tipples decision on meaning in the Associated claim, the parties agreed the meaning of the words complained of were:

Dee has sent her daughter, Nicola Adams, really horrible and threatening text messages, and by sending those abusive messages to her daughter, Dee Adams is perpetuating, in a different form, the abuse Nicola Adams suffered at the hands of her father when she was a child, and that has ruined her relationship with her daughter.

The meaning was determined to be mostly factual, asides from the below phrase which was held to have opinion meaning.

Dee is perpetuating, in a different form, the abuse Nicola Adams suffered at the hands of her father when she was a child.

Defence of truth

Dee disputed that the abusive messages were the primary cause of the breakdown in her relationship with Nicola.  Instead, she attributed the breakdown to Nicola's actions and a separate family dispute involving Nicola's brother, claiming the abusive texts were a justified response to these other issues.  Consequently, Dee’s barrister argued that the defence of truth could not apply, because what caused the ruined relationship was not the abusive texts themselves, but rather these alternative factors.

Amazon successfully argued that the ‘essential core’ or defamatory sting of the libel, being the admitted fact that Dee had sent abusive messages to Nicola, was plainly substantially true.  The judge emphasised that the dispute over causation (i.e. whether the messages were responsible for the breakdown of Dee and Nicola’s relationship or whether it was some other underlying family dispute) was irrelevant to the defence of truth.  Families fall out all the time, and this alone was not likely to cause serious harm to Dee’s reputation.  It was the act of sending abusive messages which held the defamatory sting and had been proven to be substantially true.

Dee’s arguments as to the underlying cause of the family breakdown, were therefore completely irrelevant to the defence of truth, and would have been bound to fail at trial.

The judgment affirms that the substantial truth of the defamatory sting provides a complete defence, even if there are ancillary factual elements that remain in dispute between the parties.

The judge commented that to litigate over the cause of the breakdown of the familial relationship would only lead to further needless sharing of private family details – an outcome that would be somewhat at odds with bringing a MOPI claim on the same facts.

Defence of honest opinion

A defence of honest opinion can only be defeated if under section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 2013 (the Act) if it can be shown that the defendant did not hold that opinion - or as per 3(6) of the Act if the statement complained of was published by the defendant (Amazon) but made by another person (Nicola) it is defeated if it can be shown that the Amazon knew or ought to have known that Nicola did not hold that opinion.

It was put to the judge that someone might hold the honest opinion that the Earth is flat without the requirement that it be true.

The sting of the opinion was in likening Dee’s behaviour – the sending of abusive texts – to that of the abusive behaviour of Nicola’s father during childhood – albeit in a different form.

The court found that Nicola’s statements represented her honestly held opinion.  There was no evidence of fabrication or disingenuousness.  Rather, it was accepted by Dee that Nicola had experienced some degree of violence during her childhood.  Dee’s barrister’s line of argument on this point drew criticism from the judge, who labelled it “irrelevant” and “inappropriate”.  Despite acknowledging that Nicola's father "slapped her on occasion," he suggested that this did not constitute "violence" considering the prevailing parenting norms in the 1980s.  In characterising these incidents instead as "discipline", he argued that it should follow that there was no abuse on which Nicola could honestly base such an opinion, and Amazon knew or ought to have known that Nicola did not hold that opinion.

The judge found this to be highly unattractive:

“The claimant’s arguments about the level of violence experienced by Nicola as a child and the minimisation of Nicola’s experience are perhaps more damning than the words complained of which do not specify any particular level of abuse or violence…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.”

Summary judgment was granted as the claimant had no real prospect of defeating the defendant’s honest opinion defence at trial.

The MOPI claim

The MOPI claim related to six items of private information that Dee said were disclosed in the Documentary.

These fell into three basic categories of information:

1. information about Nicola’s upbringing,
2. information about Nicola’s experiences of domestic violence as a child, and
3. information about the recent messages sent by Dee to Nicola.

The two main issues with the MOPI claim were:

1. the extent to which there can be any reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to information already in the public domain, and
2. the extent to which the freedom of expression rights of Nicola and Amazon (Article 10) outweighed Dee’s right to privacy (Article 8).

Stage one: what is a reasonable expectation of privacy?

One way to frame the question of whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy is to ask, ‘whether a reasonable person, placed in the same position as the claimant and faced with the same publicity, would feel substantial offence’  (HRH the Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1810).

If the answer to that question is not obvious, the correct method in answering it should involve a broad objective assessment of all the circumstances of the case, including the ‘Murray factors’ (Murray v Big Pictures (UK) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 446at [36]), which are:

• the attributes of the claimant;
• the nature of the activity in which the claimant was engaged;
• the place at which it was happening;
• the nature and purpose of the intrusion;
• the absence of consent and whether it was known of could be inferred;
• the effect on the claimant; and
• the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publisher.

While privacy rights can survive a degree of publicity of the information or related information (see for example, PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26), if the information is in the public domain, or about to be, the court must have regard for that fact when assessing the above factors.

In addressing the first two categories of information (Nicola’s upbringing and experience of domestic violence), the judge noted that Nicola's autobiography, which was published in 2017, contained references to difficulties she encountered in childhood, including the domestic violence she witnessed.

The judge observed that since the book's publication, Nicola had repeatedly spoken about these aspects of her childhood in the press.  Upon examining the wide range of publications addressing these issues, the judge concluded that, at the time of publication, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to those aspects of the information.  The extensive public discussion of these matters had effectively removed any expectation of privacy that might have previously existed.

Regarding the messages Dee sent Nicola, and the deterioration of the relationship between Dee and Nicola, the judge noted the absence of any details on the content of the messages themselves in the Documentary.  Considering that the abusive nature of the messages had already been generally accepted, the judge determined that a general description of the existence of communication between mother and daughter, or a reference to their relationship's breakdown, would not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The information shared in the Documentary about abusive messages and family relationship breakdown was very general and the judge expected Dee to have a “reasonably robust and realistic approach to living in the 21st century” (Ambrosiadou v Coward [2011] EWCA Civ 409), particularly given Nicola’s status as a public figure and the level of media attention that Nicola attracts.

It was also noted that Dee had initially consented to sharing aspects of their family life, even cooperating with the Documentary makers, before the relationship with her daughter soured.

The claim failed at the first hurdle.

Given the nature and profile of the case, however, the judge felt it worth considering how stage two would have applied to any residual privacy rights.

Stage two: must the privacy rights of Dee yield to the freedom of expression enjoyed by Nicola, Amazon and their audiences?

Answering this question is a highly fact-dependent exercise.  The right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are both qualified and neither have automatic precedence.  Therefore, the court will focus intensely on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the particular case before it.

The judge looked closely at how Dee’s Article 8 right to privacy balanced against Amazon’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression, and, importantly, Nicola’s right to tell her own story as protected by both Article 10 and Article 8.  Citing Re Angela Roddy [2003] EWHC 2927 (Fam), the judge considered that the personal autonomy protected by Article 8 extends to the right to waive your own privacy in order to share the story of one’s own childhood, development and history with the world at large.

The judge considered Nicola’s personal story to be one of impressive social mobility and triumph in the face of adversity and discrimination, calling it “a source of inspiration for girls and women”.  The Documentary, and the information shared about Nicola’s childhood in particular, was therefore, clearly in the public interest.  Any residual Article 8 rights of Dee were far outweighed by the rights of Nicola to tell the story of her life via Amazon publishing it.

In her closing remarks the judge acknowledged that “continued litigation with no prospect of success would only serve to draw further attention to the publication and reveal further and more detailed private information in open court.  It is clear that the hurt is real on both sides, but this claim is not the right vehicle to address it”.