Heard and Depp ended their relationship in May 2016 and filed for divorce four days later. She accused Depp of having physically abused her throughout their relationship, usually while he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
When he was separated from his wife on May 21, before she filed for divorce, he is alleged to have thrown his phone at her and she ended up with a bruised face. According to a police spokesman, no crime occurred following an investigation into the domestic incident radio call.
The actor denied these allegations, and his representatives said Heard aimed to get a financial settlement too soon by alleging abuse.
The case was settled out of court on August 16, 2016 for $7 million
Despite her testimony under oath, Hearing ultimately withdrew her request for a domestic violence restraining order after withdrawing her deposition. In addition, she declined her request for $50,000 a month in spousal support.
The two actors also put out a joint statement saying our relationship was passionate and at times even volatile, but it was bound by love. Neither party falsely accused the other to gain a monetary advantage. It was never meant to cause harm to anyone physically or emotionally.
Heard had $7 million to his name when the divorce was finalized, but donated it to charity, according to People.
Finalization of the divorce occurred in 2017
Their divorce became final about a year after Heard filed the papers. Mr. Heard, who was under scrutiny in 2015 when it was found he had failed to declare his dogs in Australia, made a similar mistake in Florida. All the while, Depp retains exclusive ownership of all of his properties, including his private island in the Bahamas and his expensive cars and motorcycles.
The Hollywood Reporter reported that the settlement contained a non-disparagement clause that prohibited either party from speaking negatively about the high-profile relationship.
Heard penned an article for the Washington Post in December 2018 about being abused.
Heard wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post in which she spoke about the treatment of women in domestic abuse cases.
In the op-ed, Heard wrote: I became a symbol of violence against women and received intense criticism and judgement.
On Thursday, Heard’s op-ed was altered with an editor’s note, which reflects on the journey of the case since it began. In response to Johnny Depp suing Heard for a 2018 defamatory article in June 2022 “following a trial in Fairfax County, Virginia Circuit Court, Depp’s lawyer claimed that a jury found Heard liable for these statements.
The statements are:-
1) When I spoke out against sexual violence, our culture attacked me. That has to change.’
2) two years ago, I became a public figure speaking out against domestic violence, and I experienced the full force of our culture’s disdain for women who speak out.
3) ‘I got to witness in real time how institutions behave when it comes to male abusers.
The court has denied Depp the possibility of trial on November 2nd in the matter of libel.
In a controversial court case with stakes high and on November 2, 2020, London’s High Court gave its verdict on the libel suit brought by Hollywood actor Johnny Depp.
In a libel lawsuit brought by Depp against The Sun’s publisher (and the newspaper’s executive editor Dan Wootton) regarding a 2018 story that appeared online with the headline: “How is Rowling ‘genuinely happy’ to cast Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?” This article asserted that Depp had been aggressive towards Amber Heard when they were dating.
Depp asserted that the allegations in the article damaged his reputation, asserting that the text bore the meaning that he was guilty of committing a serious domestic violence act against his former wife. The defense maintained that the evidence established that the claimant was violent towards Ms Heard on multiple occasions during their relationship, and that the wife-beater claim was therefore justified. Instead of relying on a 14 count of physical abuse against Heard which occurred from 2013 to 2016, Depp continued to deny allegations, which he said harmed my reputation and my career.
In July 2020, the case was heard for 16 days at London’s Royal Courts of Justice. Depp and Heard were not on trial. And this wasn’t a criminal trial either. There were two main issues in this libel case: the meaning of the articles complained of; their claim there is evidence either way, for or against the statement that the Hollywood actor engaged in the following: unprovoked attacks and violent conduct against his ex-wife. According to Mr. Justice Nicol, the meaning of the words complained of should be read as expressed by The Sun, namely that Depp was violent toward Heard, causing her significant injury and even leading her to fear for her life.
The judge additionally acknowledged that Depp satisfied the essential standards of his grievance, that his renown had been destroyed. On the other hand, if a defendant can show that the published words are accurate, then they can’t be successfully sued regardless of the severity of the allegations.
His appeal to the court was denied.
Depp and his lawyers have applied to the Court of Appeals in London – the second-highest court in the land – to get permission to contest the ruling of the High Court that he assaulted his ex-wife, Amber Heard.
However, the Court of Appeal judges denied Depp’s application saying the original hearing “was full and fair” and that the trial judge “gave thorough reasons for his conclusions which have not been shown even arguably to be vitiated by any error of approach or mistake of law.”
Heard and Depp’s lawyers presented opening statements in court
J. Benjamin Rotten born, Heard’s lawyer, noted in opening statements that Depp is going to try to turn this case into a soap opera, a reference to his often-tumultuous relationship with Supposedly, this lawsuit revolves around the First Amendment question of whether actress Amber Heard is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s freedom of speech law.
Rotten born stated, The answer is clearly yes.
At one point in the meeting, Rotten born read the full op-ed aloud and claimed that it’s clear that the article wasn’t written to re-hash accusations against Depp, but rather to provide observations about an issue and its potential consequences for pending legislation. Rotten born argues that if Heard had the intention of detailing her relationship with Depp, the article would have been different.
“She could fill a book with those details. She would have told you about the monster, but she didn’t. That wasn’t the point of this article,” Rotten born said. “Because Johnny Depp brought this case, all of that is going to come out. Just know Amber Heard didn’t want to unearth for the public who the real Johnny Depp is … You’ll see the real Johnny Depp, behind the pirate costume.”