Richard Stewart Taylor v Pathe Productions Limited & Ors

When determining the meaning of a feature film, the court must consider the film as a whole and the impression it would leave on the hypothetical reasonable viewer watching it once for entertainment. Visual presentation, editing, tone and performance may be important, and a forensic analysis of the transcript should be avoided. The natural and ordinary meaning may include reasonable implications and inferences. A meaning may be defamatory even where it is expressed as opinion, provided it tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people and crosses the threshold of seriousness. A film may convey a factual allegation through its narrative and presentation, while conveying criticism of conduct as opinion.

The claimant, a former senior employee of the University of Leicester, brought libel proceedings concerning his portrayal in the feature film The Lost King. The film dramatised the discovery of Richard III’s remains and depicted the claimant as presenting the University as responsible for the discovery while marginalising Philippa Langley.

The trial concerned preliminary issues directed by Nicklin J: the film’s natural and ordinary meaning; whether that meaning was defamatory; whether it comprised fact or opinion; and, if opinion, whether its basis was indicated. The defendants accepted that the claimant’s pleaded meanings were defamatory, but advanced narrower meanings concerning the University’s exaggerated role and the claimant’s dismissive and patronising conduct.

1. Meaning. The court viewed the film before considering the parties’ cases. Applying the principles in Jones v Skelton, [1963] 1 WLR 1362, and Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd, [2019] EWHC 48 (QB), the film had to be assessed as a whole from the perspective of the hypothetical reasonable viewer. The viewer would watch the film once as a dramatisation, without taking notes or cross-checking its details. The court therefore gave weight to the overall impression, including the film’s audio-visual presentation, rather than conducting a forensic analysis of the transcript.
2. The film conveyed that the claimant knowingly misrepresented the University’s role in the search for and discovery of Richard III’s remains, and marginalised Ms Langley despite her major contribution. It also conveyed that his conduct towards Ms Langley was smug, unduly dismissive and patronising.
3. Fact and opinion. The allegation that the claimant knowingly misrepresented the facts was a statement of fact. The criticism of his conduct towards Ms Langley was an expression of opinion. Although the film did not expressly use the words dismissive or patronising, its audio and visual presentation clearly expressed that view from Ms Langley’s perspective. The approach to broadcasts stated in Millett v Corbyn, [2021] EWCA Civ 567, was applicable by analogy to a feature film.
4. The court rejected the wider allegations that the claimant was misogynistic or sexist, that he personally engineered the burial arrangements to frustrate Ms Langley, or that he equated Richard III’s physical deformity with wickedness. Those conclusions went beyond the impression conveyed to the reasonable viewer.
5. Defamatory meaning. The first meaning was accepted as defamatory. Applying the common-law principles summarised in Millett v Corbyn, [2021] EWCA Civ 567, the second meaning also satisfied the consensus requirement and the threshold of seriousness. The film portrayed the claimant consistently negatively in the context of a senior professional role, and the criticism of his treatment of Ms Langley was contrary to common shared values and substantially adverse in effect.

The preliminary issue was determined accordingly.