A high court judge ruled on December 12, 2008 that Elton's sense of humour failure over a satirical piece by a Guardian columnist was a tantrum too far.

In a groundbreaking libel decision, the judge said that "irony" and "teasing" do not amount to defamation. The ruling offers protection to writers of satirical articles clearly not meant to be taken seriously and was welcomed last night by media lawyers and journalists.

The Guardian was awarded costs and Elton, who brought the action, was refused leave to appeal by Mr Justice Tugendhat. Elton's legal team indicated that he might now seek leave to appeal.

Elton brought the action following the publication in Guardian Weekend magazine, in July 2008, of a spoof diary written by Marina Hyde. "A peek at the diary of Sir Elton John" recorded his fictional thoughts about his annual White Tie and Tiara ball, which raises millions of pounds for the Elton John Aids Foundation.

"Naturally, everyone could afford just to hand over the money if they gave that much of a toss about Aids research - as could the sponsors," Hyde wrote, in the persona of the singer. "But we like to give guests a preposterously lavish evening because they're the kind of people who wouldn't turn up for anything less." Photos of the ball had been published by arrangement in OK! magazine under the heading: "The stars dazzle in Chopard as they join Sir Elton John and David Furnish for their annual extravaganza."

Elton, represented by solicitors Carter Ruck and, in court, by William McCormick, claimed that the article suggested that his commitment to the charity is so insincere that he hosts the ball knowing that only a small proportion of the money raised will go to the charity, and that he uses the event "as an occasion for meeting celebrities and/or self-promotion".

It was also suggested that Hyde acted maliciously, as she was aware that the sponsors covered the costs of the ball and all the money raised - between £6.6m and £10m - went to the charity. In Hyde's "diary" she suggested that "once we've subtracted all these costs, the leftovers go to my foundation. I call this care-o-nomics." The Guardian, represented in court by Gavin Millar QC, denied Elton's claims and argued that the article had to be taken in context. It was also argued that no reasonable reader would have believed that the words were meant to be taken at face value. The judge agreed.

"The transparently false attribution is irony," said Tugendhat, in a 17-page judgment. "Irony is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used ... The attribution is literally false but no reasonable reader could be misled by it." The judge added: "Irony is not always a form of sarcasm or ridicule."

For the Guardian, Millar submitted that the words used were "obviously a form of teasing" and the judge accepted this. "The words complained of ... could not be understood by a reasonable reader of the Guardian Weekend section as containing the serious allegation [that only a small proportion of the money raised went to charity]. "If that was the allegation being made, a reasonable reader would expect so serious an allegation to be made without humour, and explicitly, in a part of the newspaper devoted to news."

The judge suggested that "if the Guardian were to expose a fraud of the kind that is alleged ... then such a reasonable reader could be sure that the exposure would be written without any attempt at humour". He added: "It is common ground that the meaning of words, in law as in life, depends upon their context."

It was common ground, said the judgment, that the average reader would realise it was a satire. McCormick, for Elton, accepted that readers would have recognised it as "an attempt at humour". Any reader would have to be "exceptionally suspicious or naive" to believe that the suggestions in the "diary" were factual. After leave to appeal was turned down, McCormick indicated that his client might now seek such leave from the court of appeal.

The decision was welcomed by media law experts. "It is encouraging to have a judicial decision that recognises that a spoof should not be taken literally," said Robin Shaw, of the law firm Davenport Lyons, which represents Private Eye. "It's significant," said media law expert Mark Stephens of the ruling. "What Tugendhat has done is move us closer to the US system where you can't get damages for satire and humour, except in the most exceptional cases."

The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, also welcomed the decision. "We're sorry that Elton John lost his sense of humour over this article," he said. "The judge - and, we suspect all readers - saw the article for what it was: a piece of mild satire. Newspapers have published satire since the 17th century in this country. The judgment is an important recognition of the right to poke the occasional bit of fun."

Related News