AUTHOR JK Rowling has been "fully vindicated and her reputation restored" following a newspaper's apology for alleging she wrote a "sob story" containing false claims about her time as a single mother, the High Court has heard.
A judge was told that the publisher of the Daily Mail has accepted the allegations were "completely false and indefensible", published an apology and undertaken not to repeat them.
Associated Newspapers Ltd has also agreed to pay the creator of Harry Potter substantial damages, which she is donating to charity, and to contribute to her legal costs, said her lawyer.
Solicitor-advocate Keith Schilling read out a two-page statement saying the newspaper allegations left the author "understandably distressed" but she was now happy to bring her libel proceedings - lodged in the name Joanne Kathleen Murray - to a close.
Mr Justice Warby, sitting at London's High Court, agreed they should be ended and "the record withdrawn".
Mr Schilling described Rowling as a highly successful author with a global public profile.
On September 18 2013 she wrote an article for the website of Gingerbread, the single parents' charity, on her own experience as a single mother in Edinburgh while writing the first of the Harry Potter books.
She described only one instance where a visitor stigmatised her when she was working at her church.
Mr Schilling said at no point did Rowling criticise or complain about her treatment at the hands of fellow churchgoers, and in fact spoke about her time working at the church "with immense gratitude".
Ten days after her article, on September 28, the Daily Mail published its own lengthy, two-page article with the headline: "How JK Rowling's sob story about her single mother past surprised and confused the church members who cared for her."
The Mail Online also published the article with the headline: "How JK Rowling's sob story about her past as a single mother has left the churchgoers who cared for her upset and bewildered".
Mr Schilling said the article alleged Rowling "had given a knowingly false account" and "falsely and inexcusably accused her fellow churchgoers of behaving in a bigoted, unchristian manner towards her, of stigmatising her and cruelly taunting her for being a single mother".
The article also alleged that her Gingerbread account had been disputed by other members of the church, who were left either upset and bewildered or surprised and confused by her "sob story".
Mr Schilling said: "The claimant's Gingerbread article was, in fact, neither false nor dishonest."
The Mail journalist had spoken to one member of the congregation, quoted in the newspaper, who had not seen Rowling's article.
Despite the Mail's claims, members of the claimant's church had not been left upset, bewildered, surprised or confused.
Mr Schilling said: "Publication of the allegations left the claimant understandably distressed.
"This distress was exacerbated by the dismissive manner in which the defendant dealt with the claimant's complaint in respect of an obviously defamatory and indefensible article."
For several months, Associated Newspapers denied that their article was capable of defaming Rowling.
In December 2013, libel proceedings were launched and the following month the publisher accepted the allegations "were completely false and indefensible", published an apology and agreed to pay substantial damages which the author was donating to charity.
Mr Schilling said: "In these circumstances, and this statement having been read out in court, the claimant now considers that she has been fully vindicated, her reputation has been restored and accordingly is happy to bring these proceedings to a close."
Referring to an earlier legal action, a statement was issued on the author's behalf, saying: "JK Rowling is pleased at the judgment made in the Court of Appeal which allows her statement in open court to be read out today."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article