Judge Tosses Lawsuit From Nicola Adams’ Mother Over Boxer’s Prime Video Documentary ‘Lioness,’ but Notes ‘It’s Clear the Hurt Is Real on Both Sides’
A lawsuit brought by Nicola Adams’ mother over her Prime Video documentary “Lioness: The Nicola Adams Story” has been tossed out of court after the judge found it had “no real prospect” of success.
Adams’ mother Denver Sorsetra Adams, known as Dee, filed the suit in London’s High Court against Prime Video U.K. owner Amazon Digital U.K., alleging libel and misuse of private information, two years ago.
More from Variety
The documentary about Adams, who was the first woman ever to win a boxing Olympic gold and the first “Strictly Come Dancing” contestant to participate as part of a same-sex couple, was released on Prime Video in Nov. 2021. It was directed by Helena Coan and produced by Salon Pictures and Rep Productions.
Earlier this year Amazon applied to have the suit dismissed without trial. On Friday Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre handed down her judgment agreeing that both facets of the lawsuit – libel and misuse of private information – were unlikely to succeed at trial and dismissed the case.
The libel aspect related to abusive messages sent by Dee to Adams, which are referenced in the documentary. According to the judgment, it seems Dee disagreed that the messages caused the relationship between her and her daughter to break down, instead blaming Adams herself as well as an “underlying family dispute.”
“It is not for this court to adjudicate on a family feud,” Judge Alegre said. “Rather, it is for me to decide whether those arguments have a realistic prospect of success if advanced at trial to defeat the defence of truth. In my view, they do not.”
The judge later added: “[Dee’s] arguments as to the underlying cause of the family relationship breakdown are completely irrelevant to the defence of truth and, as such, are destined to fail. What is more, litigating those arguments would only lead to further needless sharing of detailed private information relating to the claimant, Nicola and other family members.”
Dee also claimed that Adams’ description of her childhood, which included domestic abuse from her father as well as one of her mother’s boyfriends, was a misuse of her personal information.
However the judge noted that the same claims had been previously made public, in Adams’ 2017 autobiography “Believe: Boxing, Olympics And My Life Outside The Ring” and were not new to the documentary. She also noted that “Dee initially consented to sharing aspects of their family life and cooperated with the documentary film makers but, when the relationship with Nicola soured, she withdrew her cooperation significantly.”
“It is the nature of celebrity in the 21st century that the line between private and public information is not as clear as it might previously have been,” Alegre said in her judgment. “In this case, the information shared about abusive messages and family relationship breakdown was very general and I would expect Dee to have a ‘reasonably robust and realistic approach to living in the 21st century’ given the level of media attention that Nicola attracts.”
She also chastised Dee’s barrister, Robert Sterling, for putting forward arguments during the hearing that were “irrelevant and inappropriate” in an attempt to make his client’s case regarding libel. “It seemed to me that, rather than addressing the honest opinion defence as it related to the defendant [Amazon], it was another attempt to discredit Nicola, albeit a fundamentally misjudged one,” the judge said.
“It is clear that the relationship between Dee and Nicola has become extremely fraught,” Alegre noted. “But airing this conflict in court is unlikely to help either of them and, ultimately, the ongoing family friction is entirely separate from the documentary, the defendant and either the defamation or MOPI [misuse of private information] claims.”
“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.”
Best of Variety
Sign up for Variety's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Solve the daily Crossword
