Pitt and Jolie to sue over 'split' story
Claim of separation 'false as well as intrusive', say lawyers, as Pitt and Jolie begin action in London high court.
Tuesday, 09 February 2010
As Hollywood's most famous power couple, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are used to every aspect of their life together being dissected in the world's media, whether it's rumours over yet another adoption, the meaning of a new tattoo, or their feelings about the other's exes.
But when the News of the World ran a front page story last month declaring the couple were splitting up after six years and as many children, and dividing their £205m joint fortune, the pair decided enough was enough, and wrote to the paper to demand an apology for these "false and intrusive allegations".
The tabloid refused to retract the story, or apologise, according to Pitt and Jolie's lawyers, and so on Monday the actors decided to sue. The couple "unequivocally" say that the story was false, and appear to be suing not for just for libel, but also for "misuse of private information", or privacy.
The action comes two years after the News of the World lost its privacy battle with Max Mosley when a high court judge ruled the F1 boss had a right to keep private his adventures with five dominatrices.
Pitt and Jolie began their legal action in the high court in London against News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary which publishes the News of the World. News Group is owned by Rupert Murdoch – as is 20th Century Fox, which made Mr and Mrs Smith, the film that gave the setting for Pitt and Jolie's blossoming love affair six years ago.
Keith Schilling of Schillings, their London lawyers, said the allegations had been reproduced in other newspapers. "The News of the World has failed to meet our clients' reasonable demands for a retraction of and apology for these false and intrusive allegations, which have now been widely republished by mainstream news outlets. We have advised them to bring proceedings, which they have now done."
Schillings said the News of the World article contravened the Press Complaints Commission code of conduct, which states that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion "once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and – where appropriate – an apology published".
The law firm added that publication amounted to a serious misuse of private information; it was not required to disclose whether the information was true or false. "However in this case we can confirm unequivocally, and upon instructions, that the allegations published by the News of the World are false as well as intrusive," the firm said.
The News of the World alleged on 24 January that the couple visited a lawyer to begin thrashing out a separation deal and that, last month, they signed a deal to divide their wealth. The article also claimed their children would live with Jolie but Pitt would have visitation rights; the separation would occur imminently.
Pitt and Jolie have three adopted children – Maddox, eight, Pax, six, and Zahara, five – as well as Shiloh, three, and 17-month-old twins Knox and Vivienne.
Schillings also said some media reports falsely identified a woman called Sorrell Trope as the couple's lawyer. Trope gave a statement to Schillings saying: "I have had no contact from .... Angelina Jolie and/or Brad Pitt. I have never met your ... clients or had any involvement with either of them. The foregoing is true with respect to all other members of this firm".
The News of the World's story went round the world but was rubbished by news outlets such as TMZ.com, which broke news of Michael Jackson's death, and US celebrity magazine People.
Pitt and Jolie have never married. Pitt divorced Jennifer Aniston, in 2005 after five years of marriage. Jolie has been married twice, to actors Jonny Lee Miller and Billy Bob Thornton; both marriages ended in divorce.
A spokeswoman for the News of the World declined to comment.
In his action against the paper in 2008, Mosley was awarded £60,000 damages, after the judge, Mr Justice Eady, ruled: "The law now affords protection to information in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in circumstances where there is no pre-existing relationship giving rise of itself to an enforceable duty of confidence."
© Guardian