Legal battle over Peter Cushing’s image in Star Wars to go to trial, judge rules

A High Court legal battle over the use of the image of actor Peter Cushing in a Star Wars film should go to trial, a judge has ruled.

Film company Tyburn Film Productions is taking legal action against Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Ltd, which is owned by Disney and produced the film, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, over their use of Mr Cushing’s image.

Cushing, who played imperial commander Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope in 1977, died in 1994 but the character was recreated in the 2016 spin-off through special effects.

Tyburn Film Productions claims that it entered an agreement with Cushing shortly before his death that prevented the reproduction of his appearance through special effects without its consent.

It began legal action against Lunak Heavy Industries and Lucasfilm, which produced the original Star Wars films, in 2019, claiming they received “unjust enrichment” from using Cushing’s image in Rogue One without its permission.

The film, which was nominated for two Academy Awards, was the highest-grossing production of 2016 in the UK, according to the BFI.

Cushing, who died from cancer aged 81, was recreated in the film by using special effects to alter the appearance of former Holby City actor Guy Henry.

Lucasfilm and Lunak Heavy Industries oppose the claim, with the court previously told that they did not believe permission to recreate Cushing’s image was required under the terms of his contract for A New Hope.

They later entered into an agreement with the executors of Cushing’s estate, which saw permission to use his image granted in return for a fee.

The companies had a bid to have the claim thrown out rejected by a judge last December, which they challenged at a hearing in London in July.

But in a ruling on Monday, deputy High Court judge Tom Mitcheson KC dismissed the appeal, stating the case should go to trial.

In his ruling, the judge said that while he was “far from persuaded” that Tyburn Film Productions would succeed in its claim, the case was not “unarguable” and a “full factual inquiry” was needed.

The trial will now take place at a later date.