Legal lessons from the Gallagher brothers

The Gallagher brothers have continued their reunion tour at a packed-out Heaton Park in Manchester before they move on to Wembley Stadium in London for the next leg of the tour starting this weekend, having finally overcome their differences, much to the relief and delight of fans.

In our third blog looking at legal cases and controversies surrounding the band over the past 30 years, Alex Howarth, a solicitor in Jacksons’ dispute resolution team, recalls the fallout of their acrimonious split 16 years ago which led to Liam commencing a High Court claim against Noel for defamation and considers what we can learn about litigation from the famous brothers.

Stop Crying Your Heart Out

On 23rd August 2009, Oasis fans were left crying their hearts out when the band pulled out of a scheduled headline slot at V Festival, stating Liam Gallagher was suffering from laryngitis and couldn’t sing.

But there was much worse to come.

Just one week later, on 28^th August 2009, eyebrows were raised when Oasis pulled out of another headline slot at the Rock En Seine festival in Paris at the last minute following an “altercation within the band”.

Noel Gallagher issued a statement that evening, which read:

“It’s with some sadness and great relief to tell you that I quit Oasis tonight. People will write and say what they like, but I simply could not go on working with Liam a day longer.”

Don’t Go Away

This appeared to be the end of Oasis, but many fans enjoyed seeing Noel Gallagher go solo under the High Flying Birds guise and Liam and the other remaining Oasis members form a new band, Beady Eye.

During a press conference for the promotion of the first solo High Flying Birds album in July 2011, Noel was quoted by the BBC to have said that the V Festival appearance two years earlier had actually been cancelled due to Liam having a “hangover” and that his decision to leave Oasis had also partly been due to Liam demanding free advertising space for his clothing label, Pretty Green, in a tour programme.

As a result of Noel’s claims, in August 2011, Reuters reported that Liam had released the following statement:

“I have taken legal action against Noel Gallagher for statements he made during the Electric Cinema press conference on July 6 during which he claimed Oasis pulled out of the 2009 V Festival Chelmsford gig because I had a hangover.

“That is a lie and I want Oasis fans, and others who were at V, to know the truth.”

Liam went on to say that Noel also “falsely stated” the demise of Oasis followed a massive row over Liam’s “demands” to advertise his clothing range in the Oasis tour program.

“The truth is there was no such discussion or row between us,” Liam said.

“There are many reasons why Oasis split. But it had nothing to do with my clothing range.”

It’s just rock ‘n’ roll Liam felt Noel’s “lies” went way beyond rock-and-roll banter, concluding his statement by saying: “I am used to being called all sort of things by Noel and I have in the past said things about him, but what Noel has alleged this time went way beyond rock-and-roll banter and questioned my professionalism.”

The BBC also reported that Liam as saying that he had “tried to resolve this amicably but have been left with no choice but legal action” and added “all I want is an apology.” The Guardian then reported that Liam had filed a claim against Noel in the High Court.

So guess who’s going to take the blame for my big mouth, my big name

Under English law, defamatory material is something that adversely affects a person’s reputation, whether that is published in media such as print, online or broadcasts (“libel”) or spoken words or gestures (“slander”). A claimant must establish that the words complained of are defamatory of them. Under common law, words complained of are defamatory and actionable by a claimant if they satisfy the following 2 requirements:

1) “The consensus requirement” – i.e. the meaning of the words “tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people generally.”

2) “threshold of seriousness” – i.e. the words imply a “substantially adverse effect” on the way that people would treat the subject.

Additionally, a claimant must establish that the words complained of have actually been published, i.e. communicated to a third party. It therefore appears that the premise of Liam’s claim was essentially that Noel’s comments about him had caused damage to his reputation in the eyes of the public that would affect him going forwards.

Additionally, following the introduction of subsequent legislation, the Defamation Act 2013, “a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.” This means that there is now a higher threshold to meet for claimants pursuing these types of claims.

There’s no need for you to say you’re sorry

Noel subsequently retracted some of his comments, with NME reporting on 23 August 2011 that he had stated during an online webchat:

“For the record, it is a fact that he was diagnosed with laryngitis and it is a fact that he had a doctor’s note to prove it. I’d just like to say that if he gets offended by my opinions on such things then I apologise.”

It appears that Liam withdrew his claim after this, indicating that the dispute had been resolved to his satisfaction. If he had instead decided to proceed with the claim, this could potentially have resulted in lengthy and costly litigation in the High Court culminating in a public trial with the brothers being called to give witness evidence against each other, which would likely have led to huge media attention at a time when the demise of Oasis and fallout between the brothers was still very raw.

This case illustrates that disputes, particularly between family members or where relationships have broken down, can quickly escalate. However, issuing court proceedings should always be a treated as a last resort and where possible, parties should still attempt to resolve disputes amicably out of court, even if proceedings have been issued.

Let There be Love

It appears that the brothers are attempting to change what’s been and gone – for now – with footage of them embracing and seeming to enjoy one another’s company on stage together for the first time in 16 years.

However, the reunion and subsequent scramble for tickets has already proven controversial.

Millions of fans were left half the world away from getting a ticket, after either being unable to get them altogether or having to pay Ticketmaster’s ‘dynamic prices’ to secure their tickets after navigating the online queue.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is currently investigating Ticketmaster’s actions and in March 2025 the BBC reported that the CMA had released an update indicating that Ticketmaster “may have misled Oasis fans” and had potentially breached consumer rights law by selling ‘platinum’ tickets above standard prices, without providing any details as to additional benefits that these tickets included.

It remains to be seen whether this will lead to any legal and/or regulatory consequences for Ticketmaster.

We’re here to take the sting out of legal disputes such as defamation, partnership disputes and misrepresentation. Get in touch with one of our legal experts today.