High Court Rules on Defamation Case Involving 'The Lost King' Film

High Court Rules on Defamation Case Involving 'The Lost King' Film

The High Court has delivered a significant ruling in the case of Taylor vs Pathe Productions Ltd & Ors, concerning alleged defamatory content in the feature film 'The Lost King'.

The case, cited as [2024] EWHC 1475 (KB), was heard before His Honour Judge Lewis, sitting as a Judge of the High Court. The judgment was handed down remotely on 14 June 2024, following a trial of preliminary issues on meaning.

The claimant, Richard Stewart Taylor, brought libel proceedings against Pathe Productions Limited, Baby Cow Productions Limited, and Stephen John Coogan. The film in question, 'The Lost King', is a dramatisation of the discovery of Richard III's remains in Leicester, released to the public on 26 September 2022.

Mr. Taylor, the former Director of Corporate Affairs and Planning and former Deputy Registrar for the University of Leicester, claimed that the film defamed him by misrepresenting his role in the discovery and portraying him in a negative light.

The court's task was to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the film's content, whether the meaning was defamatory at common law, and whether the statements were facts or opinions. The judgment referenced key legal principles from cases such as Jones v Skelton and Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd.

The court found that the film conveyed two defamatory meanings about Mr. Taylor: that he knowingly misrepresented facts about the search for Richard III's remains, marginalising Philippa Langley's role while promoting the University of Leicester's involvement, and that his conduct towards Ms. Langley was smug, unduly dismissive, and patronising.

Judge Lewis determined that the first meaning was a statement of fact and defamatory at common law, while the second meaning was an expression of opinion. The court emphasized that the film's portrayal of Mr. Taylor was from Ms. Langley's perspective, and the hypothetical reasonable viewer would recognize the dismissive and patronising behavior as comment on her treatment by Mr. Taylor.

The judgment also addressed the claimant's allegations of misogyny and disablist behavior. The court concluded that the film did not suggest Mr. Taylor's actions were motivated by sexism or misogyny, and the mimicking of a hunchback was not intended to be disablist but rather dismissive of Ms. Langley's views.

This ruling sets a significant precedent for media and communications law, particularly in the context of dramatisations based on true events. Legal experts note the importance of this judgment in balancing the portrayal of real individuals in media with the principles of defamation law.

The case was argued by William Bennett KC and Victoria Jolliffe for the claimant, and Andrew Caldecott KC and Hope Williams for the defendants.

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) for the defendants.

Judicial Panel: His Honour Judge Lewis

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