Lights, camera, litigation — The Lost King case

The settlement of Richard Stewart Taylor v (1) Pathe Productions Limited, (2) Baby Cow Productions Limited and (3) Stephen John Coogan has prompted an interesting discussion about the dramatisation of ‘real life’ events on the screen. The legal case is a useful reminder that defamation law applies to such storytelling. The context is also intriguing, involving a high-profile comedian, a car park and a king.

Here, Eleri Gibbs from our reputation management team explores the legal and reputational lessons arising from the case.

Opening credits

The Lost King (2022) is a film that dramatises the discovery of King Richard III’s remains under a Leicester car park in 2012. Richard Stewart Taylor (former Director of Corporate Affairs and Planning and Deputy Registrar at the University of Leicester) subsequently brought a libel claim against three defendants — Pathe Productions Limited and Baby Cow Productions Limited (the companies responsible for producing and publishing the film) and Steve Coogan (the co-author of the film’s screenplay, one of its producers and a member of the cast). 

On 14 June 2024, His Honour Judge Jaron Lewis delivered judgment after a preliminary meanings hearing. This stage determines what meanings the work conveys about the Claimant, whether those meanings are statements of fact or opinion and whether they’re defamatory at common law. HHJ Lewis found that Richard Taylor was portrayed in the film as “smug, unduly dismissive and patronising” in his interactions with researcher Philippa Langley (the heroine of the piece) and as someone who had “knowingly misrepresented facts to the media and the public”. HHJ Lewis also found that the film’s depiction was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. This cleared the way for the case to proceed and established the parameters in terms of what the Defendant needed to prove in terms of meaning.

Why did Mr Taylor bring the case? Professional embarrassment, hostile communications and reputational damage within the claimant’s sector were all cited during coverage. The case was listed for trial in late 2025. However, on 27 October 2025, a settlement was reached with the parties agreeing the payment of damages, costs and the inclusion of a statement at the start of the film clarifying that the portrayal of Mr Taylor was fictional and that he acted with integrity during the events depicted. 

Statements from Mr Taylor’s legal team described the outcome as a “defamation David and Goliath moment”, emphasising the power imbalance when individuals face large media organisations such as well-resourced production companies. It’s important to note, however, that the Court didn’t make any final judgment in the case. However, the case does provide some interesting issues for consideration.

Behind the scenes

In an era where films are often described as ‘based on a true story’, the line between fact and fiction can blur, with real reputations at stake.

In this case, the court found that the character in the film clearly bore the name, role and likeness of Richard Taylor. At the preliminary hearing, it was held that the film conveyed meanings which, if untrue, would seriously harm Mr Taylor’s reputation.

In a streaming-first world, a front-of-film clarification is likely to reach more viewers than a court judgment ever could. That said, it took legal action to secure a clarification in this case.

The producers’ position that The Lost King was a feature film, not a documentary, didn’t end the analysis. Where a piece of work uses real names, real roles and is framed as a ‘true story’, a court will consider whether the ordinary viewer would understand the depictions as statements of fact about the real person. 

A disclaimer isn’t necessarily a complete shield, particularly where a narrative suggests specific misconduct or bad behaviour. In such cases, liability or reputational damage may still arise, regardless of the disclaimer’s intent or wording. However, in this case, the story was said to be true.

Avoiding a sequel

Audiences are drawn to ‘true story’ narratives but with that label comes heightened legal risk. The law expects careful fact‑checking and fair engagement with those portrayed. Litigation around such cases can be costly, as both the damages and reputational fallout in this case demonstrate. 

‘Front‑card clarifications’ can mitigate risk, especially where characters aren’t direct portrayals of real individuals but are instead inspired by multiple people. However, if a film uses a real person’s traits, name, employment, and depicts specific, discreditable conduct, a general disclaimer will carry greater risk. 

Split screen settlement

Libel cases frequently settle after preliminary rulings as these decisions often clarify the parties’ respective prospects. When a defendant struggles to establish truth or a claimant anticipates a strong honest opinion defence, settlement becomes an attractive option.

Here, settlement occurred at the final hour, just before trial, following two years of litigation. Consequently, there was no final judicial determination on liability or on the applicability of statutory defences under the Defamation Act 2013 such as truth, honest opinion or public interest.

On one hand, the settlement included no substantive edits to the film beyond the new ‘front card’. On the other hand, the Claimant will point to the damages, costs and clarification as tangible vindication. Both readings can be true — the practical message for all parties is that early, pragmatic resolution often serves everyone better than a full trial.

Recurring drama

The case is part of a wider trend — the so-called ‘biopic boom’. The Lost King isn’t the first time that a film or series based on real events has sparked legal controversy.

Netflix’s hit series Baby Reindeer is another recent example. Marketed as a ‘true story’, it dramatised comedian Richard Gadd’s experience of being stalked. The show became a global sensation but also triggered a $170m defamation lawsuit by Fiona Harvey who claimed that she was identifiable as the character ‘Martha’. 

Her case argued that the series exaggerated events, depicting her as a convicted criminal and violent offender, which she denied. American Judge R. Gary Klausner allowed the defamation and emotional distress claims to proceed, noting that the ‘true story’ marketing could mislead viewers into treating fiction as fact. 

Like others before it, this dispute underscores a recurring tension — filmmakers want drama but real people want fairness. When the line between fact and fiction blurs, the courtroom often becomes the next act.

Protecting what matters most

Our defamation & reputation management team is here to help you to act decisively, reduce risk and secure outcomes that protect your good name. Whether you're responding to reputational harm or planning a high-risk project, we’ll work with you to move quickly, think strategically and safeguard what matters most — your reputation.

Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.