Peaky Blinders costume designer locked in £40K libel battle with mother-in-law who claims she was branded a cruel and uncaring monster on Facebook during row over sons estate
The mother-in-law of an award-winning costume designer is demanding more than £40,000 in libel damages over claims she was depicted as a cruel uncaring monster-in-law in a Facebook post.
The mother-in-law of an award-winning costume designer is demanding more than £40,000 in libel damages over claims she was depicted as a cruel uncaring monster-in-law in a Facebook post.
Yvonne Tattersall, 64, who has supplied outfits for Peaky Blinders and won an Emmy for her wardrobe work in the 2011 miniseries Great Expectations, is locked in a bitter court battle with her 80-year-old mother-in-law, Lynette Tattersall.
The pensioner had gone to war with her daughter-in-law after claiming she had bankrolled the firm Yvonne had set up with her son, Mick Tattersall, which supplied period costumes to the TV and film industry.
But following her sons death in 2019, interior designer Lynette sued for repayment of sums she said she was owed by his estate and by Yvonne, eventually earning a five-figure pay-out in court.
In the midst of the row, Yvonne made a Facebook post in September 2021, accusing her mother-in-law of trying to make her homeless and telling lies about her, resulting in her becoming an outcast in her home village in Lancashire.
Lynette is now suing her daughter-in-law at the High Court, claiming the Facebook post was false and caused serious reputational damage by associating her as a monster-in-law who was cruel and uncaring.
Yvonne Tattersall is being sued by her mother-in-law after accusing her of trying to make her homeless in a Facebook post. Pictured: Yvonne Tattersall outside the High Court in London
Lynette Tattersall claimed the statement made by her daughter-in-law had caused serious damage to her reputation. Pictured: Lynette Tattersall sat in a chair wearing a blue dress
Yvonne had set up a costume rental firm with her late husband Mick Tattersall, with her mother-in-law claiming she was owed money from the firm. Pictured: Mick Tattersall pictured sitting on a bench while wearing a suit
She is demanding at least £40,000 in damages, plus an injunction to restrain Yvonne from making similar posts.
But the costumier is defending the case, claiming that what she said in her online post was justified because it was true - with the pair clashing in court during fiery exchanges this week that prompted a warning from a judge.
A member of BAFTA, Yvonne spent two decades as a costume designer and supervisor in film and TV, winning an Emmy for her efforts on Great Expectations, as well as working on Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason and the 2012 movie version of Les Miserables.
After moving back to her native north west, she set up the 20th Century Costume Hire Company with her husband.
On its website, the business describes its genesis in his hoarding of clothing dating back to the 1940s, with it now boasting thousands of items.
Over the years it has been hired for star-studded productions including Peaky Blinders, Sexy Beast and the Sex Pistols biopic Pistol.
The couple married in 2015, but he died in November 2019, with his grieving mother and widow then falling out bitterly over the couples family home in Billington village, near Clitheroe.
Lynette claimed she had provided her son and his wife with financial assistance throughout their relationship, including taking out a mortgage to allow them to purchase the house in 2012, subject to them making the repayments.
Lawyers for Lynette Tattersall claimed she had not been trying to make her daughter-in-law homeless when applying for an order of sale on her property. Pictured: Lynette Tattersall seen wearing an all-white outfit
Yvonne Tattersall claimed in the Facebook post that her mother-in-law had spread lies about her in her Lancashire village, leading to her becoming an outcast. Pictured: Yvonne Tattersall outside the High Court in London
In 2021, around 18 months after her sons death, she sued her daughter-in-law and her sons estate, seeking an order for sale of the property so she could recoup loans and payments owed for the mortgage.
During the county court row, which was heard in Manchester, Yvonne made the Facebook post which has now led to her being sued by her mother-in-law again at the High Court.
In it, she wrote: Went out tonight in my village for the first time in nearly two years since my husband died, I have not been able to go out because people who used to be my friend have decided to support my mother-in-law, a women who has tried to make me homeless and continually told lies about me.
Anyone who really knows me knows I am not capable of what she is accusing me off. I no longer want anything to do with anyone who is friends with her so goodbye I shall be deleting you.
Lynettes barrister Lily Walker-Parr told Mr Justice Julian Knowles at the beginning of a High Court trial this week that Yvonne had blackened her mother-in-laws reputation in three ways with her Facebook post, by wrongly accusing her of trying to make her homeless, causing her to be ostracised and claiming she had lied.
Yvonne, representing herself, is arguing that each of the statements was justified because they were true, and that they were not in any case defamatory.
But Ms Walker-Parr told the judge the accusations about Lynette were false and obviously defamatory.
Allegations that a mother-in-law would endeavour to make her daughter-in-law homeless, continually tell lies about her and ostracise her in her local community are particularly grave and made even worse by the fact that she has recently been widowed, she said.
Lynette (pictured left outside the High Court) is suing her daughter-in-law over a post made on Facebook which she claimed is defamatory
The row erupted after Lynette sued the estate of her late son Mick Tattersall and Yvonne for money she claimed she was owed. Pictured: Mick Tattersall before his death
It echoes the derogatory monster-in-law trope of the cruel uncaring mother-in-law.
Such an allegation is therefore sufficient to give rise to an inference of serious reputational harm.
She told the judge that Lynette believes that at least 57 people saw the post before it was deleted in February last year.
The judge is now being asked to decide whether each of the three alleged meanings was made out.
Setting out Yvonnes defence case, Lynettes barrister told the judge she advances a truth defence in respect of the homelessness meaning because the claimant sought an order for the sale of the property and if successful in the county court claim against the estate of Mr Tattersall the claimant would have been left without a home and bankrupt as she would not have had any inheritance or other financial means.
Yvonne also argues her mother-in-law told lies during the county court trial.
Ms Walker-Parr said that, ultimately, the mother-in-law was awarded £20,000 damages from her daughter-in-law and about £10,000 from her sons estate following the county court case.
She said seeking an order for sale does not amount to making endeavours to make a person homeless.
It was neither the claimants intention, nor a likely outcome, and the claimant continued to pay the mortgage payments despite seeking an order for sale to ensure that the defendant was not evicted, she said.
The defendant was first given the opportunity to, and did, redeem the mortgage and receive the legal title.
The defendants defence to the homelessness allegation is based on an exaggerated and sinister notion that the county court proceedings seeking an order for sale were issued to make her homeless...that the claimants aim was to make the defendant homeless.
Asking the judge to award £40,000 general libel damages plus aggravated damages should Lynette win, the barrister added: The post was targeted at those in the claimants community who knew or were friends with the defendant, and allegations made were of an unusually grave and personal nature.
Lynette in the witness box was cross-examined by Yvonne in tense exchanges, which prompted the judge to warn the court, its never a good idea for anybody involved in litigation to lose their temper.
Yvonne Tattersalls firm had provided costumes for hit shows including Peaky Blinders. Pictured: Cillian Murphy as Tommy Shelby in Peaky Blinders
Yvonne, focusing in on an allegation that Lynette told lies about Michaels funeral expenses, put to the older woman that her witness statement claimed Yvonne had never offered to contribute but that an email from December 2019 showed that she had in fact offered to go 50/50 on the funeral with her mother in law.
I didnt want you to pay. I offered to pay half. You were obviously a wealthy woman, Yvonne said.
Lynette told the judge that one of her grandchildren had told her in the days after Michaels death that there was going to be no funeral. Yvonne had told him there was no way to pay for the funeral.
She also told the judge Yvonne had wanted this very expensive coffin and claimed her daughter-in-law had sent another email asking if I would pay for the wake.
They wanted oysters, she added.
Asked by the judge why she had not mentioned Yvonnes email offer to share the cost in her witness statement, Lynette replied: It was absolute mayhem after my son died. I couldnt think straight.
She went on to accuse her daughter-in-law of ostracising my grandchildren from my life as a result of the prolonged family battle.
The trial continues.
