Russells partner agrees to pay damages to JK Rowling over confidentiality breach

  • Print
  • Comments (11)

Readers' comments (11)

  • Poor thing. Maybe in time, just maybe, a multi millionaire world famous author can get over the truly horrific experience of selling even more books and making even more money. Interesting to note that profits from the increased book sales will go to her and her publishers after three years anyway, so it's not all bad news, eh?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon @1010pm, you've obviously missed the part about the royalties donation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anon most sales will occur in the first three years, so yes it is generous. Another loser jealous of someone else's success.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Given that the majority of a book's sales will happen in its first three years, I would expect the majority of those royalties will in fact go to the charity and not to JK Rowling. She can at least be commended for giving them her royalties at all (which she'd intended to do whether or not the book was a bestseller). I don't see Little Brown offering up any part of the % revenue they'll make from this. She's not the greatest write in the world, but do try to be a little more charitable. Many authors would have taken the money and ran.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • On a legal point, I wonder how the damages would have been quantified if the matter had proceeded to a full trial?
    The solicitor’s error actually made her money, so I cannot see why she would be entitled to compensation, except possibly a small amount distress caused.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • She won!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think she would have received damages, Nick, as she was not suing for the financial loss. She was suing for the lack of her ability to write anonymously, which is a special sort of damage, but it is one which her solicitors were clearly aware of in unmasking her. It was a breach of contract, so the damages reflect the loss of the thing which she could have expected had the contract been performed....I don;t think its offset by the gain. Anyway, how deeply humiliating for Russell's head of media to be so publicly shamed. Thats probably the real reason for settling!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Classy act by a classy lady.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A lawyer friend of mine NEVER EVER talks about her work or clients to outsiders including her friends and family, and that shows how high the integrity – the sky is the limit - of her work is!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The right outcome.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Regarding loss of anonymity vs gain of publicity: the anonymity had a particular value to her, as it was a property that she could control. Potentially she could have written 7 books under the pen name and built a ton of hype along the lines of "Who is Robert Galbraith", which could have resulted in greater profits than being exposed early against her will.

    So I would say that the anonymity has a value - hard to quantify admittedly - which is not to be offset against the immediate profits from being revealed.

    It's a very unusual point of law and a shame that we didn't get the benefit of a judgment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (11)