Between 2009 and 2010, Alexander Reid, a British martial artist known as a “cage fighter”, and Katie Price, a British TV personality and author, were in a relationship. They got married on February 2, 2010. During this period, Price obtained private video recordings and photographs of Reid engaged in sexual activity on two separate occasions: one in 2009, where he cross-dressed, and the other in 2010. In late 2009, Reid discovered that Price had the first intimate images when he saw them on her laptop at their home. When he confronted her, she assured him that she would delete them. Within a year of their marriage, they separated.

In February 2011, Reid received messages on Twitter from Price’s then-boyfriend, Leandro Penna, suggesting that he had seen his intimate images from the second occasion.

On September 12, 2011, Price gave formal undertakings not to publish or disclose videos and images of Reid engaging in sexual acts, except under certain circumstances. The couple got divorced on March 20, 2012. In 2013, Reid learned that, despite that undertaking, Price had disclosed his private information to his former partner, Chantelle Houghton, and referred to his private video while giving evidence in Family Court proceedings. Unknown entities blackmailed Reid regarding the video. In 2014, a media article reported that Price’s friend Jemma Henley had seen “gross” videos of Reid. In 2016, someone named “Ben Bird” contacted Reid stating that “Well I’ve seen you’re porn video [sic] and you’re dirty asf….”. [para. 39] In December 2016 and June 2017, Reid learned from Price’s publicist and a mutual acquaintance that Price had shown his private video to several individuals.

On July 18, 2017, based on Price’s statements, the news website Daily Mail Online published an article titled “’’It would disturb everyone to the grave ‘: Katie Price still has ‘disgusting’ footage of ex husband Alex Reid tucked away and she’s shown ALL her friends”. The article quoted Price saying “[n]ow with Alex for example, the amount of stories he’s done on me, but he forgets what videos and pictures I have of him. All my friends have seen them, but not once have I ever put them out.” [para. 25]

In 2017, Reid filed a legal claim seeking an injunction, damages, and relief under the Data Protection Act, 1998.

On January 15, 2018, an individual contacted Reid on Twitter, claiming that Price had shown private footage to audience members at a “Celebrity Big Brother’s Bit on the Side” event.

On February 13, 2018, the newspaper The Sun published an article reporting that Price was being investigated for “revenge porn” after showing Reid’s private video to “40 strangers” at the event.

On November 27, 2019, after legal proceedings, an injunction was granted, and Price was directed to deliver documents and devices on which the private information was stored. The determination of damages and compensation to be awarded to Reid for misuse of private information and violations of the Data Protection Act, 1998 was postponed.

Justice Warby of the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division delivered the judgment. The central issue was the assessment of damages.

Reid claimed that Price unlawfully retained and disclosed his private information, including intimate videos and photos, without his consent, which constituted a gross misuse of his private information and a violation of data protection principles under the Data Protection Act. He submitted that Price breached a formal undertaking by publicly referring to these videos and images and that he was “mocked and denigrated as a sexual deviant and predator” as a result of Price’s unlawful disclosure, which led to anxiety. [para. 47] He stated that her ongoing public comments left him feeling suicidal, believing she used the private information for publicity. Reid referred to awards made in Gulati v. MGN Ltd to Alan Yentob of £85,000 and Lauren Alcorn of £72,500, and requested an award of over £60,000.

Price did not appear in Court and the Court accepted that it could continue in her absence.

The Court stated that “in misuse of private information and data protection claims, damages may be awarded for loss of autonomy or loss of control; the nature of the information disclosed and the degree of loss of control should bear on this aspect of the court’s assessment of damages – the more intimate the information and the more extensive the disclosure, the greater the award.” [para. 51]

The Court rejected Reid’s request for damages over £60,000. While it acknowledged the harm caused to Reid due to taunts about his cross-dressing, it found that his cross-dressing was public at the time of Price’s disclosures. [para. 55] The Court distinguished the present case from Gulati v. MGN Ltd, where damages were awarded for unlawful access to personal information, and from Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Ltd, where deeply private sexual details were exposed by a popular newspaper publicly without warning. The Court rejected Reid’s contention that all the threats and psychiatric harm he experienced were attributable to Price’s disclosures, characterising his claims of his life being “destroyed” as “rhetorical exaggeration”. [para. 58]

The Court referred to the Judicial College Guidelines (15th edition) for general damages in personal injury cases, noting that an award over £60,000 would be comparable to compensation for losing sight in one eye and partial sight in the other, or for becoming impotent in middle age. It found such an amount excessive in this context and inconsistent with recent libel awards. The Court cited Barron v. Vines, where £40,000 was awarded for defamatory allegations of covering up child sex abuse, and Monroe v. Hopkins, where £24,000 was awarded for defamatory tweets suggesting the claimant supported vandalising war memorials.

In accepting that Price deliberately disclosed videos and images of Reid’s intimate sexual activity without his consent, sharing them with friends, strangers, and others, the Court found that Price’s actions – particularly providing details to a media publisher – led to widespread discussion of Reid’s sex life, which was demeaning and caused “a real loss of personal dignity and harm to his self-esteem.” [para. 59] It described Price’s behaviour as “persistent, flagrant, arrogant, high-handed, and inexcusable,” which aggravated the harm and caused Reid significant distress and noted that Price’s repeated references to Reid’s private information caused additional upset and that the £25,000 award was comparable to damages for “moderately severe psychiatric harm”. [para. 60]