Steve Coogan’s Richard III film had defamatory meaning – judge

The ruling means the case can now proceed to trial, for which a date has not been set.

At the previous hearing, William Bennett KC, representing Mr Taylor, said the film showed him as a “devious, weasel-like person” and a “suited bean-counter”, who was “mocking” Richard III’s disability.

“It’s a straightforward, plot-driven film where everything that is said and done matters,” Mr Bennett said.

Andrew Caldecott KC, representing Mr Coogan and the two companies, said the film stated it was “based on a true story”, adding: “It is not a literal portrayal of exact words and would be understood as putting forward Ms Langley’s perception.”