They absolutely blackguarded Rourke. Joyce and Rourke sued. Rourke was in debt and settled for a pittance immediately. Joyce continued with his action and got his just share. The case is a landmark case in partnership law.
Marr and Rourke seem to have made up though, you donât know what happened in the meantime. But yeah, it was a messy case. I must find where Marr speaks about it in his book to see what he said about it.
Was it not the case that Marr and Morrissey wrote all the songs but it was never documented and under partnership law they were all equal partners in their business
royalties werent disputed IIRC, it was all the other money coming in and that wasnt documented and, putting it kindly, the judge found morrisey and marr less than credible in their evidence
As far as I know the issue was about the performing royalties, not the songwriting royalties.
The songwriter stuff was split 50:50 between Morrissey and Marr as they were the named songwriters.
The performance stuff was also split 50:50 between the two.
Joyce took issue with the latter and claimed he was entitled to 25% of the performance stuff.
Morrissey claimed that Joyce was always âlooked afterâ and that he agreed to the casual nature of the financial set up. Morrissey used him and Rourke in some solo stuff.
Anyway poor Andy Rourke was fond of heroin and was removed from the band and then reinstated. He fell on hard times and took the offer. To me that was the more wrong part of it - it was obviously accepted by M and M that Rourke had a case and used his bad fortune against him. Or their solicitors did.
.The judge said, however, that Joyce and Rourke impressed him as âstraightforward and honestâ although they were ânot intellectuals and certainly not financially sophisticated or awareââŚ
Morrissey âappeared devious, truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stakeâ and Marr was "willing to embroider his evidence to a point where he became less credible
there were more barbed comments but i cant find the original judgement