Cleese has last laugh with £13,500 win for newspaper libel

The former Monty Python star John Cleese was awarded £13,500 in libel damages yesterday over a "spiteful and vitriolic" newspaper article on his move to the United States.

The decision by Mr Justice Eady followed a High Court hearing in London during which Cleese, 63, giving evidence via video link from his home in California, described the article in the London Evening Standard as "thoroughly nasty".

The newspaper also faces a bill of about £120,000 to cover both parties' legal costs.

After the ruling, Cleese's solicitor, Martin Cruddace, said: "It is a complete vindication of Mr Cleese. The judge held it was, in effect, a disgraceful piece of journalism. Mr Cleese is very happy with the result."

The article, which Cleese said "struck at the core" of his achievements in comedy, was written by the Evening Standard columnist Pete Clark and published on 11 April last year.

Consequently, the comedian, who has starred in movies including A Fish Called Wanda and Clockwise since his Monty Python days, launched a legal action. He challenged the thrust of the article, which suggested he had become a humiliated failure since emigrating to America. Despite the newspaper's printed correction and an "offer of amends", amounting to £10,000, the comedian continued with the action because he felt the published apology was not sufficient and he had not been vindicated.

Mr Justice Eady said the tone of the piece was "manifestly vitriolic" and "clearly suggests that a long, slow decline in his [Cleese's] talents and professionalism has finally ended with a bump". He continued: "The impact of the article on the ordinary, casual reader would surely have been simply to raise a question mark as to what had evoked such a spiteful piece. It plainly went beyond the normal bounds of news coverage or television criticism, and no one has sought to defend it as being either accurate or fair comment."

But Mr Justice Eady added that he doubted the star's well established reputation around the globe would have been significantly damaged, if at all.

The judge continued: "He may, perhaps, by some people's standards, be regarded as unduly sensitive about this unpleasant article but his hurt feelings are certainly genuine.

"Those who use the popular media to make unpleasant personal attacks must, as the saying goes, take their victims as they find them. If they choose to attack someone of particular sensitivity or vulnerability, they must, generally speaking, be ready to take the consequences."

While taking account of the fact that the newspaper had offered £10,000 and printed an apology three months after the offending article, the judge commented that it did so "without any great enthusiasm or generosity of spirit".