David Furnish and Elton John ‘robbed of privacy’ by birth certificate story, court hears

David Furnish and his husband Sir Elton John were “robbed” of their privacy by “exploitation” of their son’s birth certificate, their High Court trial against the Daily Mail’s publisher heard.

Furnish and the singer-songwriter Sir Elton, are among several prominent figures, including the Duke of Sussex and actress Liz Hurley, pursuing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The couple claim ten articles published between 2002 and 2015 were based on unlawfully obtained information, specifically citing medical details.

ANL has vehemently denied wrongdoing, with its lawyers previously asserting in court that the allegations from Sir Elton and Furnish are "unsupported by any evidence before the court and utterly baseless".

On the fourteenth day of the trial on Thursday, Furnish gave evidence remotely, appearing via videolink at the court in London.

He alleged that the Mail obtained a copy of their son Zachary’s birth certificate before the couple had received their copy.

Sir Elton and Furnish have two children, Zachary and Elijah, both of whom were born using a surrogate.

open image in gallery

Furnish told the court: “We were stunned. After all the precautions we had taken, after doing everything possible to protect her and us, The Mail somehow got there first.

“That was deeply disturbing. A birth certificate is a private document. For The Mail to access it before the parents themselves - it was outrageous, invasive, and upsetting.

“It left us asking, “If they can get this, what else can they get?”It was not just a trivial detail. It was our son’s first legal document, and for it to be exploited in that way was extremely upsetting.

“For us, everything about Zachary’s arrival and early days was supposed to be private and under our control. We were robbed of that and it was infuriating.”

Furnish also said that the Mail “used the birth certificate story to feed into their homophobic agenda”.

“They paired it with unflattering photos of Elton and me leaving a fancy dress party and mocked us with a caption casting me as the ‘mother’ and Elton as the ‘father’”, he added.

“It was deeply offensive but entirely in keeping with their attitude toward us. Elton and I are incredibly angry.”

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 agency the Centre for Surrogate Parenting.

Furnish told the court in his oral evidence that neither he or Sir Elton had given the surrogacy agency permission for the statement, adding: “We had a very carefully planned media strategy.”

In his written evidence, the filmmaker also said he and Sir Elton “have a long and difficult history with The Mail”.

He continued: “For years they have been actively homophobic.

“While The Mail have partly moved with the times, they have also published countless judgmental and narrow-minded stories about us – pieces clearly designed to undermine who we are and how we live our lives.

“To know that they were enabled to do this to us through stolen information, and setting private investigators on us, and landline tapping and recording our live telephone calls, is an abomination.”

In written submissions, Antony White KC and Catrin 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 Sir Elton’s spokesman at the time “regularly provided the media, including Associated journalists, with information about their lives”, including health information.

Asked about his social circle during his cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Evans suggested to Furnish that “from time to time you would be happy to chat to journalists”.

Furnish responded: “I really try to avoid them at all costs.”

open image in gallery

She later said: “It was likely that individuals in your social circle thought it was all right to do the same thing.”

Furnish replied: “I don’t agree with that conclusion.”

Ms Evans later asked whether the filmmaker agreed that his social circle was “wider than friends and family”, with Furnish telling the court that people who were not his friends would not know his private information.

Furnish was later questioned about another article in his and Sir Elton’s claim about the singer having to cancel tour dates for medical reasons in 2009.

Ms Evans said that the medical information in the article was taken from a public statement, media reporting and statements from spokespeople.

She later asked: “Would you accept that the article that you are claiming about here was reporting in fact a public statement made on Sir Elton’s own website and also contained further reporting of the information which had been put out by your or Sir Elton’s spokesman?”

Furnish said in response: “The information in the article that was concerning was the information about the treatment that Elton had undertaken.

“When you cancel show dates, you have to give fans reassurance, but you don’t want to have to reveal 100% of what is going on medically.

“He had to have a series of X-rays and scans…. it was the specific detail in that article about the treatment that he had undergone that was surprising and of concern.”

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