April 6, 2020

The claimant, Alexander Aristides Reid, is a cage fighter, who appeared on and won the TV series Big Brother. The defendant, Katie Price, is a well-known TV personality, author and model, also known by the stage name Jordan. The couple married on 2 February 2010, but the relationship soon foundered and a divorce was finalised on 20 March 2012.

During the relationship Ms Price obtained video recordings and photographs of Mr Reid engaged in sexual activity (the Private Information). As a result of disclosures Ms Price later made, Mr Reid sought, and Ms Price subsequently gave, written undertakings to Mr Reid that she would not, except in certain specified and limited circumstances, publish or disclose or cause republication of the video footage or any stills, or any description of Mr Reid’s sexual acts recorded on the footage.

In 2017, Mr Reid issued proceedings against Ms Price for breach of confidence, misuse of private information and breach of contract. He also sought compensation under the Data Protection Act 1998. Mr Reid contended that between about 2012 and January 2018 Ms Price disclosed all or part of the Private Information to at least 50 people. He also complained that she had breached the undertakings by publicly describing one aspect of the Private Information. Mr Reid sought an injunction to restrain further breaches of his rights, damages, and other orders.

In May 2018, Mr Reid was granted interim relief as the judge was satisfied that his prospects of success at trial were sufficiently favourable.

Ms Price filed a defence, but subsequently failed to comply with directions that were given at the case management conference. Accordingly, the defence was struck out and judgment was entered for Mr Reid for an injunction, delivery up of any documents or devices on which the Private Information had been stored, and for damages and compensation to be assessed.

Mr Justice Warby noted that Mr Reid had established a claim based on four different causes of action. However, he did not consider that the contract claim added anything of relevance and he said there was no material difference between the approach to be taken to the claims in confidentiality, misuse of private information, and breach of statutory duty. The essential task was to compensate Mr Reid for the wrongful retention and wrongful disclosure of images of his sexual conduct, and the wrongful disclosure of information about that conduct. Logically, it was the claim for wrongful disclosure that predominated. The claim in wrongful retention was secondary and subordinate to that claim.

Mr Reid accepted that his claim for damages was limited due to the claim form stating: “Value: For issue purposes the Claimant’s damages claim is limited to £25,000”, which reduced the fee payable on issue.

Warby J accepted that the claim merited an award of at least £25,000, and that was the sum he awarded.

Warby J found that Ms Price’s conduct had involved the deliberate exposure to a substantial number of individuals of moving and still images of Mr Reid’s intimate sexual activity, which were taken without his consent and disclosed in the knowledge that he positively objected. Some of the disclosures were made to people who knew Mr Reid personally, and were known by him, including his ex-partner. Mr Reid found out about these disclosures through mutual friends. Other disclosures were made on public occasions, to people who were complete strangers to Mr Reid and Ms Price. In addition, Ms Price had used graphic terms to describe an intimate sexual act to a media publisher, with a view to publication, and had thereby caused the publication of that description in an online article available to anyone and doubtless read by a very large number of people. Warby J accepted that Mr Reid had found it demeaning to have details of his sex life disclosed repeatedly in this way, and that he had suffered a real loss of personal dignity and harm to his self-esteem.

In addition, Warby J found that Ms Price’s conduct had considerably aggravated the harm caused by the disclosures themselves. Her behaviour had been persistent, flagrant, arrogant, high-handed, and inexcusable, and for those reasons very distressing and hurtful to Mr Reid. Mr Reid’s perception that Ms Price had lied about whether she retained copies of the Personal Information, and that she had acted maliciously, was reasonable, and he was entitled to be compensated for the distress he had suffered as a result. Ms Price’s frequent additional references or allusions to the Private Information, sometimes in threatening terms, had caused additional upset. Damages of £25,000 would be comparable to an award for moderately severe psychiatric harm, or a neck injury leaving markedly impaired function. Applying the principles relevant to the tortious disclosure of personal information, which aims to restore the claimant to the position he would have occupied but for the tort, Warby J said that an award at that level or more was fully merited on any view of the authorities. (Alexander Aristides Reid v Katie Price [2020] EWHC 594 (QB) (13 March 2020) — to read the judgment in full, click here).