The mother of Olympian Nicola Adams has had her libel claim over an Amazon documentary about her daughter ended at the High Court.

Denver Dorsetra Adams, also known as Dee, claimed that some of what the boxer says in a documentary called “Lioness: The Nicola Adams Story”, about their recent communications is defamatory and a misuse of her private information.

She also alleged that other parts of what her daughter says about her childhood – including experiences of domestic violence with her father and another partner of hers – are also a misuse of her private information.

Dee Adams brought legal action against Amazon Digital UK Limited – which owns Amazon Prime Video – at the High Court in London.

But in a ruling on Friday, Judge Susie Alegre said the proceedings were “not the right vehicle to address” the “fraught” relationship between the former boxer and her mother and dismissed the claims in favour of Amazon.

She said that “ultimately, the ongoing family friction is entirely separate from the documentary”.

Amazon Digital had asked the court for a summary judgment – a legal step to decide the case without a trial – on the grounds that the allegedly libellous statements are unarguably true or reflect honest opinion.

It is clear that the relationship between Dee and Nicola has become extremely fraught. But airing this conflict in court is unlikely to help either of them

Judge Alegre dismissed the case for the libel and privacy claims saying Dee Adams “has no realistic prospect of success in challenging the defendant’s defences of truth and honest opinion”.

She continued in the 13-page judgment: “It is clear that the relationship between Dee and Nicola has become extremely fraught.

“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 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.”