By George Matlock
Elton John told London’s High Court On November 15, 2000, that he once spent $57 million in 20 months and admitted that past drug addiction meant he lost track of his finances.
Elton John took centre stage at London’s High Court in a 20 million pound legal battle against the “men in suits”. Sir Elton, who was wearing a sombre grey suit himself, is suing Andrew Haydon, of Elton’s former management company John Reid Enterprises (JRE), and City accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which looked after his business interests.
“I like to spend money,” Elton told the court. “I don’t have anyone to leave my money to. I’m a single man. I like to spend money,” he said when defense lawyer Mark Hapgood, acting for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, put it to him he spent $57 million between January 1996 and September 1997. When Hapgood
added that $419,000 of that spending went on flowers, Elton said: “Yes, I like flowers.”
Hapgood said that PriceWaterhouseCoopers had gone to considerable lengths to inform Sir Elton and his representatives of the often parlous state of his finances. He cited an occasion when Elton had summoned one of the accountants to the United States to discuss what Hapgood called a serious financial crisis. When the accountant got there, Elton refused to see him, Hapgood told the court.
“The only explanation I can give is that it was before July 1990,” Elton replied. “At that time I was a severe drug addict.” During a series of questions on the details of his financial records, Elton repeatedly replied: “No, I can’t remember.”
Elton continued: “I was never interested in business. I never had a flair for business. I had a flair for writing songs.”
The case continues.
EJW.com court reporters will also continue to bring you the latest breaking news about this court case, and provide succinct context and relevant legal notes to guide you through a complex case, in the weeks ahead. Please be aware that EJW.com is unwilling to prejudice the court hearing, and its expert panel will therefore not offer any “what it all could lead to” analysis of the deliberations until the trial closes.