ARTICLE
28 January 2009

Sir Elton John - Ridiculed But Not Defamed

KG
K&L Gates
Contributor
K&L Gates fosters an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to combine the expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices spanning across five continents, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry.
Recently the High Court of Justice in London handed down a ruling in favour of The Guardian newspaper that furthers the protection afforded to writers of satirical articles from defamation claims. Sir Elton John commenced proceedings against The Guardian for libel after it published a spoof article
Australia Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Originally Published On 24th December 2008

Recently the High Court of Justice in London handed down a ruling in favour of The Guardian newspaper that furthers the protection afforded to writers of satirical articles from defamation claims.

Sir Elton John commenced proceedings against The Guardian for libel after it published a spoof article in July 2008 written by Marina Hyde. The article, "A peek into the diary of Sir Elton John" recorded his fictional thoughts about his AIDS charity ball.

Counsel for Sir Elton alleged the article ridiculed his client's commitment to the AIDS charity and suggested that Sir Elton saw the ball as an opportunity for self-promotion and meeting celebrities rather than helping people. The Guardian denied the allegations and pleaded, as an alternative defence, "fair comment".

Justice Tugendhat struck out Sir Elton's claim after finding that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the alleged meanings. His Honour stated that the meaning of the words depended upon their context, and that because the article appeared in the weekend section of the newspaper, it was not to be regarded as a "hard news" piece. Although the attribution of the words by the journalist to Sir Elton was literally false, it was found that no reasonable reader could have been be misled.

Journalists will no doubt welcome Justice Tugendhat's finding that the article was little more than an exercise in irony. This is to be compared with the situation where the joke might not be readily apparent or malice is involved (see our last eAlert, "Olympian wins substantial damages for defamation" click here).

In Australia, both the common law and the statutory "triviality defence" deter people from bringing frivolous defamation claims. A defamation action will be unsuccessful if the defendant can prove that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any real harm.

Light hearted "teasing" of Sir Elton in Australia would be likely to attract such a defence, although it is always wise to seek pre-publication advice before going to print.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

ARTICLE
28 January 2009

Sir Elton John - Ridiculed But Not Defamed

Australia Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Contributor
K&L Gates fosters an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to combine the expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices spanning across five continents, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More