Uppal v Endemol UK Ltd & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE DINGEMANS
Areas of Law
- Media Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Deana Uppal, a former Big Brother contestant, brought claims against Endemol UK Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, and Conor McIntyre for defamation, breach of duty of care, and breach of contract related to broadcasts showing negative interactions between Uppal and McIntyre. The court found the broadcasts were not capable of bearing defamatory meanings and granted summary judgment for Endemol and Channel 5 on the defamation claim. Uppal was ordered to provide further information on the breach of duty of care and breach of contract claims.
Judgment
Mr Justice Dingemans :
Introduction
This is a claim made by Deana Uppal (“Ms Uppal”), a model, actress and former Miss India UK. Ms Uppal was a housemate in the 2012 series of “Big Brother”. The claim is made against Endemol UK Limited, the producer of Big Brother, (“Endemol”), Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, the broadcaster of Big Brother, (“Channel 5”) and Conor McIntyre, a fellow housemate of Ms Uppal on Big Brother (“Mr McIntyre”). The status of the proceedings against Mr McIntyre was not clear from the information provided to me.
Contestants, who become housemates, live together in the Big Brother house where they compete to win a prize of £100,000. The contestants are constantly watched by television cameras. Sometimes they are taken into the diary room to speak to Big Brother. The contestants win by being the last person left after all the other housemates have been evicted from the Big Brother House. The series takes place over a number of weeks.
The claim arises in respect of two broadcasts of events from the Big Brother House. The first broadcast was on 25 th June 2012 and the second broadcast was on 19 th July 2012. There are claims for damages, including aggravated damages, for libel and for breach of a duty of care owed by Endemol and Channel 5 to Ms Uppal as a housemate, and for breach of contract against Endemol.
It is in these circumstances that Endemol and Channel 5 bring an application seeking: (a) a ruling that the words complained of in this action are incapable of bearing the meaning pleaded in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12 or 13 of the Particulars of Claim; (b) that the words are not capable of being defamatory of Ms Uppal; and (c) that Endemol and Channel 5 be granted summary judgment against Ms Uppal on the defamation claim.
Endemol and Channel 5 also seek an order that Ms Uppal provide further information about her claim for breach of a duty of care and breach of contract. That application is agreed, but there is a dispute about the costs of that application.
The broadcast on 25 June 2012
The broadcast shows a number of persons sitting around the dining table in the kitchen. Ms Uppal was washing up. One of the housemates, Caroline, called over to Ms Uppal and the following exchange took place with Mr McIntyre (shown on the transcript as Conor):
Caroline: Deana your leg hair is on the kitchen table.
Deana: What are you saying, that I used my epilator on the kitchen table?
Caroline: You can see it.
Deana: Oh shut up \