Actor to be awarded full $2.9m in damages after judges reject all publisher’s grounds of appeal, including for a retrial, that costs be reduced and that it defamed Rush. Follow the latest updates
1.09am BST
Though the appeal was dismissed, the appeal court has agreed with one part of the Daily Telegraph’s submissions, which is that the trial judge put too much weight on promotional press interviews where Eryn Jean Norvill praised Rush.
The trial judge, Michael Wigney, had said that Norvill had undermined her reliability as a witness by giving a positive press interview about Rush to the Telegraph in 2015, as she promoted King Lear.
There is some force in the appellants’ submission that the judge attached greater significance to Ms Norvill’s statements in the promotional interviews than the circumstances warranted.
The purpose of the interviews was obvious, namely, the promotion of the STC’s production of King Lear. The actors sought to present a positive image of the production so as to encourage audiences to attend. In such interviews, it is almost de rigueur for the participants to speak about the complexity of the play, the delight which they are experiencing in performing it and about the good “chemistry” which exists between the actors.
12.55am BST
And here is the judgment summary for you to read.
We’re still combing through the 177-page full judgment and will bring you the most pertinent parts.
Continue reading…Actor to be awarded full $2.9m in damages after judges reject all publisher’s grounds of appeal, including for a retrial, that costs be reduced and that it defamed Rush. Follow the latest updates 1.09am BSTThough the appeal was dismissed, the appeal court has agreed with one part of the Daily Telegraph’s submissions, which is that the trial judge put too much weight on promotional press interviews where Eryn Jean Norvill praised Rush. The trial judge, Michael Wigney, had said that Norvill had undermined her reliability as a witness by giving a positive press interview about Rush to the Telegraph in 2015, as she promoted King Lear. There is some force in the appellants’ submission that the judge attached greater significance to Ms Norvill’s statements in the promotional interviews than the circumstances warranted.The purpose of the interviews was obvious, namely, the promotion of the STC’s production of King Lear. The actors sought to present a positive image of the production so as to encourage audiences to attend. In such interviews, it is almost de rigueur for the participants to speak about the complexity of the play, the delight which they are experiencing in performing it and about the good “chemistry” which exists between the actors. 12.55am BSTAnd here is the judgment summary for you to read. We’re still combing through the 177-page full judgment and will bring you the most pertinent parts. Continue reading…