Taylor vs Pathe Productions Ltd & Others

This case involved libel proceedings brought by Richard Stewart Taylor against Pathe Productions Limited, Baby Cow Productions Limited, and Stephen John Coogan, concerning the portrayal of Taylor in the feature film 'The Lost King'.

TLDR:

• Richard Stewart Taylor filed a libel lawsuit against the producers and co-author of 'The Lost King'.
• The court examined the natural and ordinary meaning of the film's content.
• The court determined that the film's portrayal of Taylor was defamatory in part.

The claimant, Richard Stewart Taylor, was the former Director of Corporate Affairs and Planning and former Deputy Registrar for the University of Leicester. He brought libel proceedings against Pathe Productions Limited, Baby Cow Productions Limited, and Stephen John Coogan over the portrayal of his character in the film 'The Lost King'. The film dramatized the discovery of Richard III's remains in Leicester and depicted Taylor in a negative light.

The film, released on 26 September 2022, presented the story from the perspective of Philippa Langley, who was shown as the driving force behind the search for Richard III's remains. Taylor was depicted as dismissive and patronizing towards Langley and was shown taking credit for the discovery on behalf of the University of Leicester.

The court was tasked with determining the natural and ordinary meaning of the film's content, whether it was defamatory of Taylor, and whether the statements were of fact or opinion. The court also considered whether the film indicated the basis of any opinions expressed.

The court referred to established principles for determining meaning, including the need to consider the impression made on the hypothetical reasonable viewer and to avoid over-elaborate analysis. The court viewed the film to form a provisional view on meaning before considering the parties' submissions.

The claimant argued that the film depicted him as dishonestly misrepresenting facts about the discovery of Richard III's remains, behaving in a dismissive and patronizing manner towards Langley, and frustrating her efforts regarding the burial of Richard III. The defendants accepted that some of the claimant's pleaded meanings were defamatory but argued that certain statements were expressions of opinion.

The court found that the film suggested Taylor knowingly presented a false narrative about the University's role in the discovery, marginalizing Langley's contributions. This was deemed a statement of fact and defamatory at common law. The court also found that the film portrayed Taylor's conduct towards Langley as dismissive and patronizing, which was considered an expression of opinion.

The court did not accept the claimant's argument that the film suggested he was misogynistic or that he behaved in a disablist manner. The hypothetical reasonable viewer would have understood the film to be expressing Langley's perspective and would not have interpreted isolated comments as indicative of broader prejudices.

In conclusion, the court determined that the film's portrayal of Taylor was defamatory in part, specifically in suggesting that he knowingly misrepresented facts about the discovery of Richard III's remains and behaved dismissively and patronizingly towards Langley.

Legal representatives: William Bennett KC and Victoria Jolliffe (instructed by Shakespeare Martineau LLP) for the claimant, Andrew Caldecott KC and Hope Williams (instructed by Wiggin Llp LLP) for the defendants.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Lewis (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 1475 (KB)