温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.5rb.com/news/preliminary-issues-determined-in-the-lost-king-film-claim
点击访问原文链接

Preliminary issues determined in ‘The Lost King’ film claim - 5RB Barristers

进入原网站 导航首页
Preliminary issues determined in ‘The Lost King’ film claim - 5RB Barristers Call 5RB+44 (0)20 7242 2902 Menu About us Our work People Barristers Support team Recruitment Resources Cases News Publications Articles 5RB Talks Links Contact Contact us Enquiry Visit us Urgent injunctions Complaints procedure Register for 5RB updates Barristers Cases Preliminary issues determined in ‘The Lost King’ film claim

June 14, 2024

Judgment was handed down today following a trial of preliminary issues on 29 February 2024 in a libel claim brought by Richard Taylor against Pathe Productions Limited, Baby Cow Productions Limited and Steve Coogan.

The claim arises from Mr Taylor’s portrayal in the 2022 film ‘The Lost King’, a dramatisation of the search for the remains of Richard III. As summarised in the judgment: “It tells the story from the perspective of Philippa Langley, who was shown in the Film as the driving force behind the search that led to the discovery of the remains.” Mr Taylor is the former Director of Corporate Affairs and Planning and former Deputy Registrar for the University of Leicester.

HHJ Lewis (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) held that the Film bore the following meanings, defamatory of Mr Taylor at common law:

The claimant knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public concerning the search for, and discovery of, Richard III’s remains. He did so by presenting a false account of the University’s role in the project, and marginalising Ms Langley’s role, despite her major contribution to the find. The claimant’s conduct towards Ms Langley in respect of the project was smug, unduly dismissive and patronising. The first meaning was held to be a statement of fact. The second meaning was a statement of opinion.

The Judge found that the film did not bear the meaning that the claimant was a misogynist or sexist. He also held that: “In respect of the mimicking of a hunchback, I do not think the viewer would take this to be an example of the claimant behaving in a disablist manner.”

5RB’s William Bennett KC and Victoria Jolliffe, instructed by Shakespeare Martineau, act for the Claimant; Andrew Caldecott KC and Hope Williams, instructed by Wiggin LLP, act for the Defendants.

The judgment is available here.

Filed under: News

Share Quick linksUrgent advice Enquiry Register for 5RB updates Latest news 5RB Hosts BVL, PASS and MTAttB Placement Students Read more

Judgment in TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

High Court hears the first application to strike out a claim as a SLAPP under CPR 3.4(2)(d) Read more

Jonathan Scherbel-Ball reappointed to Advisory Council on National Records and Archives Read more

Phone hacking limitation trial begins Read more

TPI on Meaning in Belafonte v NGN Read more

£50,000 damages and an injunction awarded in TikTok libel claim Read more

Sunday Times granted transparency order in care proceedings about fabricated or induced illness Read more

View news archive Latest cases Bradley v CM & others [2026] EWHC 125 (Fam)

Optosafe Limited & Anr v Robertson [2026] EWHC 12 (KB) [2026] EWHC 12 (KB)

Blake v Fox [2025] EWCA Civ 1321

Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2024] EWHC 2732 (KB), [2025] EWCA Civ 476 [2025] EWCA Civ 476

Wei & Ors v Long & Ors [2025] EWHC 158 (KB) [2025] EWHC 158 (KB)

Iqbal v Geo TV Limited [2024] EWCA Civ 1566

View all cases Follow us @5RB Email* CommentsThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. 5 Gray’s Inn Square Gray’s Inn London WC1R 5AH T 020 7242 2902

Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board

Site Map Privacy Policy Disclaimer Credits

智能索引记录