Elton John tells court alleged Daily Mail actions were ‘outside human decency’

Elton John after a hearing in 2023 Picture: Aaron Chown/PA

Elton John has described the alleged “invasion” into his and his son’s medical information by the Daily Mail as “abhorrent and outside even the most basic standards of human decency”, a British High Court has heard.

Mr John and his husband, David Furnish, are part of a group of household names, also including Britain's Prince Harry and actress Liz Hurley, bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The couple allege 10 articles about them between 2002 and 2015 were based on unlawful information gathering, including unlawfully obtained medical information and landline tapping.

ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing, with lawyers for the publisher previously telling the court that the claims made by Mr John and Furnish are “unsupported by any evidence before the court and utterly baseless”.

Mr John appeared via video link to give evidence to the court in London on Friday for just over half an hour, wearing a green striped blazer, blue shirt and patterned tie.

David Furnish and Sir Elton John (Ian West/PA)

He initially apologised for any “inconvenience” caused by his eyesight and thanked the court for allowing him to give evidence remotely, adding that it “would have been very difficult” for him to physically come to court.

The Rocketman singer later said: “The case we are bringing… contains the most horrendous things in the world that you can ever suffer from a privacy point of view.”

Cross-examining the singer, Catrin Evans KC, for ANL, said: “It is true you did not complain at the time that they were published, about any of them.”

Mr John replied: “I can’t remember,” adding: “I don’t think we knew the full extent of what had happened at that time.”

In written submissions, Antony White KC and Ms Evans KC, both for ANL, said the social circles of most of the group of household names bringing the claims were “leaky”.

They continued: “Their friends, and friends of friends or associates, did regularly provide information to the press about the claimants’ private lives, for obvious reasons, on a confidential basis.”

The barristers later said that Mr John, spokesman at the time, “regularly provided the media, including Associated journalists, with information about their lives”, including health information.

Mr John told the court on Friday that the spokesman “no longer works for us”.

The court was previously told that Mr John and Furnish felt the safety of their children had been “violated” by alleged unlawful news-gathering, including the alleged “stealing” of Zachary’s birth certificate before the couple had received a copy.

In written submissions, ANL’s lawyers said that the article was “entirely legitimately” sourced from previously published reports of the child’s birth, information from the local registrar’s office, as well as a statement from a surrogacy agency.

Ms Evans suggested information had been put into the public domain before the Mail article.

In response, Mr John described the birth of Zachary as like an “army manoeuvre”, adding: “We kept it quiet, which was a miracle considering who we are.”

The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March, with a judgment in writing due at a later date.