Editing The Smiths (section)

===1989: Royalties dispute===
Morrissey and Marr each took 40% of the Smiths' recording and performance royalties, allowing 10% each to Joyce and Rourke. Joyce's barrister later argued in court, that Joyce and Rourke were treated as [[session musician]]s, "as readily replaceable as the parts in a lawnmower".<ref>''The Daily Telegraph'', Thursday, 12 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121120173341/http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm|date=20 November 2012}} is archived at morrissey-solo.com. Retrieved 8 January 2012.</ref> In March 1989, Joyce and Rourke started legal proceedings against Morrissey and Marr. They argued that they were equal partners in the Smiths and were each entitled to a 25 per cent share of the band's profits on all activities other than songwriting and publishing. Rourke, who was in debt, settled quickly for a lump sum of £83,000 ({{Inflation|UK|83,000|1989|fmt=eq|cursign=£|round=-1}}) and 10 per cent of royalties, renouncing all further claims.<ref>For the settlement with Rourke, see "Morrissey May Face New Claim for £1m", ''Manchester Evening News'', Thursday, 12 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121120173341/http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm|date=20 November 2012}} is archived at morrissey-solo.com. Retrieved 8 January 2012. For the history of the dispute, see [http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html ''Joyce vs. Morrissey and Others''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923192001/http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1711.html|date=23 September 2015}}, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions, 6 November 1998. Retrieved 8 January 2012. See also Brian Southall, ''Pop Goes to Court: Rock 'n' Pop's Greatest Court Battles'' (London: Omnibus, 2008; rev. edn. 2009), ch. 16, "The Smiths: Seeking Satisfaction Over a Fair Share of the Profits".</ref>

Joyce continued with the action, which reached the [[Chancery Division|High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)]] in December 1996. Morrissey and Marr had accepted the previous year that Joyce and Rourke were partners, but whether Joyce was entitled to a quarter of profits "arising out of the activities (other than songwriting or publishing)" of the Smiths remained contentious.<ref name="Others 1998">''Joyce vs. Morrissey and Others'' (1998).</ref> Joyce's barrister, Nigel Davis, said that Joyce did not realise he was receiving only 10% of the profits until after the band split.<ref>Richard Duce, "Former Smith Lets Court Know Why He's Miserable Now", ''The Times'' (London), Tuesday, 3 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120620064733/http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html|date=20 June 2012}} is archived at ''Cemetry Gates''. Retrieved 8 January 2012.</ref>

Morrissey and Marr – who were represented separately at the trial<ref name="Others 1998"/> – insisted that the royalty split had been explained to Rourke and Joyce, though they were no longer sure when. Additionally, this agreement was only discussed verbally and it was never legally written on paper, something Marr came to regret. He said in 2004 that although he had no regrets in breaking up the Smiths, he wished the band had signed legal documents "from the word go" to avoid the later financial disagreements.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Sheppard |first=David |title=We Changed People's Lives |magazine=MOJO the Collectors' Series: The Smiths – Hand in Glove 1982–1987 |date=2022 |page=105}}</ref> As Marr's counsel, Robert Englehart, said, "Some 13 years on it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the moment when the 40:40:10:10 profit split came into being&nbsp;... But Morrissey and Marr acted throughout on the basis that they would be getting 40 percent each of the net profits from the Smiths' earnings."<ref>"Smiths' Cash Split 'Never Equal{{'"}}, ''Manchester Evening News'', Tuesday, 10 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120620064733/http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html|date=20 June 2012}} is archived at ''Cemetry Gates''. Retrieved 8 January 2012.</ref>

After a seven-day hearing, Judge Weeks found in favour of Joyce, ordering that he receive around £1&nbsp;million in back-royalties and 25 per cent henceforth. The judge also gave character assessments; Joyce and Rourke (who gave evidence in Joyce's support) impressed him as straightforward and honest, whereas Morrissey "appeared devious, truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stake" and Marr was "willing to embroider his evidence to a point where he became less credible".<ref name="Others 1998" /> The judge also said that Marr was "probably the more intelligent of the four", and that Rourke and Joyce were "unintellectual".<ref name="guardmarr" /> Morrissey said in an interview eight months later:

{{blockquote|The court case was a potted history of the life of the Smiths. Mike [Joyce], talking constantly and saying nothing. Andy [Rourke], unable to remember his own name. Johnny [Marr], trying to please everyone and consequently pleasing no one. And Morrissey under the scorching spotlight in the dock being drilled. "How dare you be successful?" "How dare you move on?" To me, the Smiths were a beautiful thing and Johnny left it, and Mike has destroyed it.<ref>Jennifer Nine, "The Importance of Being Morrissey", ''[[Melody Maker]]'', 9 August 1997. The [http://motorcycleaupairboy.com/interviews/1997/import.htm full text] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120071530/http://motorcycleaupairboy.com/interviews/1997/import.htm |date=20 January 2012 }} of the interview is reproduced at ''The Motor Cycle Au Pair Boy''. Retrieved 8 January 2012.</ref>}}

Asked some time before the trial whether he thought Rourke and Joyce had been short-changed, Morrissey responded: "They were lucky. If they'd had another singer they'd never have got further than Salford Shopping Centre."<ref>''The Daily Star'', Thursday, 12 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121120173341/http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm|date=20 November 2012}} is archived at morrissey-solo.com. Retrieved 8 January 2012.</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Simon Goddard|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O3pEsVdZWUoC&dq=morrissey+rourke+joyce+salford+shopping+centre&pg=PA83|title=Mozipedia: The Encyclopedia of Morrissey and The Smiths|date=2009|publisher=Ebury Press|isbn=978-0091927103|page=81|access-date=22 October 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Kurson|first=Ken|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323297104578177310003624672|publisher=Wall Street Journal|title=The Pleasure, the Privilege Was Ours|date=28 December 2012|access-date=22 October 2021}}</ref> Morrissey's counsel, Ian Mill, conceded that Morrissey's attitude "betrayed a degree of arrogance".<ref>''Manchester Evening News'', Wednesday, 11 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120620064733/http://www.cemetrygates.com/vault/news/court.html|date=20 June 2012}} is archived at ''Cemetry Gates''. Retrieved 8 January 2012.</ref> Morrissey appealed against the verdict; the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) in November 1998 and dismissed.<ref name="Others 1998"/> Inspired by Joyce's success, Rourke sought legal advice on his own options.<ref>"Morrissey may face new claim for £1m", ''Manchester Evening News'', Thursday, 12 December 1996. A transcript of the [http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm article] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121120173341/http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/news1296.htm|date=20 November 2012}} is archived at morrissey-solo.com. Retrieved 10 January 2012.</ref> He was declared bankrupt in 1999.<ref>Robert Bottomley, [http://www.citylife.co.uk/news_and_reviews/news/5110_can_a_new_film_heal_smiths__rift_ "Can a New Film Heal Smiths Rift?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120121165802/http://www.citylife.co.uk/news_and_reviews/news/5110_can_a_new_film_heal_smiths__rift_|date=21 January 2012}}, ''Manchester Evening News'', Tuesday, 29 August 2006. Retrieved 10 January 2012. See also the [http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/1999/150.shtml discussion] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121120173240/http://www.morrissey-solo.com/news/1999/150.shtml|date=20 November 2012}} at morrissey-solo.com. Retrieved 10 January 2012.</ref>

In November 2005, Joyce told [[Marc Riley]] on [[BBC Radio 6 Music]] that financial hardship had reduced him to selling rare Smiths recordings on eBay. By way of illustration, Riley played part of an unfinished instrumental known as the "Click Track" (or "Cowbell Track").<ref>''The Mint Show with Marc Riley'', BBC Radio 6 Music, Sunday, 27 November 2005. See the [https://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20051201_joyce.shtml report] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081118055754/http://www.bbc.co.uk/6music/news/20051201_joyce.shtml|date=18 November 2008}} at BBC Radio 6 Music; and the [http://www.morrissey-solo.com/article.pl?sid=05/11/28/162226 discussion] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190313212910/https://www.morrissey-solo.com/article.pl?sid=05%2F11%2F28%2F162226|date=13 March 2019}} at morrissey-solo.com. Both retrieved 9 January 2012.</ref> Morrissey responded with a statement three days later revealing that Joyce had received £215,000 each from Marr and Morrissey in 1997, along with Marr's final backpayment of £260,000 in 2001. Morrissey failed to make his final payment because, he said, he was overseas in 2001 and did not receive the paperwork. Joyce obtained a default judgement against Morrissey, revised his outstanding claim to £688,000 and secured orders garnishing much of his income. This was a source of grievance to Morrissey, who estimated that Joyce had cost him at least £1,515,000 in recovered royalties and legal fees up to 30 November 2005.<ref>[http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01 "Statement from Morrissey"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120510054040/http://true-to-you.net/morrissey_news_051130_01|date=10 May 2012}}, 30 November 2005, at true-to-you.net. Retrieved 9 January 2012.</ref>