A momentous court battle over the fate of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire gets under way in Nevada today.
At stake is the future of a string of newspapers and television channels consumed by millions of people around the world, as well as thousands of jobs – and billions of pounds.
The media mogul, who turned 93 this year, has spent decades building up his news brands, making them some of the most powerful and influential in the Western world.
But now, as he nears the end of his life, a rift has opened up in his family – and raised questions about what kind of legacy he will leave behind.
The case will decide who controls Murdoch’s family trust after he is gone and which of his children will have major voting rights in his companies. And it could result in the billionaire’s heir apparent Lachlan Murdoch being out-manoeuvred by some of his less conservative siblings.
Image: Rupert Murdoch and his wife Elena Zhukova. Pic: News Corp
What are his family members fighting over?
The row centres around future power and influence over Mr Murdoch‘s two companies – News Corp and Fox.
News Corp owns newspapers including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post in the US, The Australian, The Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph in Australia, and The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times in the UK.
Also under News Corp’s wing is publishing giant HarperCollins, along with several Australian TV channels.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, Fox News, Fox Sports and streaming service Tubi form part of his other major company.
Mr Murdoch has a roughly 40% stake in voting shares of each company.
Sky News, which Mr Murdoch launched in the UK in 1989, is no longer part of his empire.
At the end of 2018, Fox’s film entertainment assets, such as The Simpsons and the Avatar film franchise, were sold to Disney – while the company’s 39% stake in Sky was sold to Comcast.
Image: Lachlan Murdoch and his wife Sarah in February 2020. Pic: Reuters
Who is involved in the case and why?
Sorting out Mr Murdoch’s inheritance was never going to be easy – he has six children and has been married five times, most recently to retired molecular biologist Elena Zhukova.
However, it had long been presumed that his business succession plans were largely settled in 1999, following his divorce from his second wife Anna.
That year the Murdoch Family Trust was founded – establishing the principle that, when he died, his News Corp and Fox’s voting shares would be divided between his four oldest children – Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James.
Following the “irrevocable” agreement, Mr Murdoch began integrating some of his children into roles at his companies.
However, following a shift in relations with some of his offspring, it emerged earlier this year that the media mogul had changed his mind.
The New York Times revealed that Mr Murdoch had decided he wanted to change the terms of the trust, to ensure his eldest son Lachlan would go on to run his businesses without “interference” from his other siblings.
The newspaper reported that James, Elisabeth and Prudence “were caught completely off-guard” by the move and had decided to unite to stop him.
Lachlan has reportedly taken his father’s side in the case.
Image: James Murdoch with his wife Kathryn Hufschmid at the Oscars earlier this year. Pic: Reuters
Why did Murdoch change his mind?
The billionaire’s efforts to tweak the terms of the family trust come amid signs that he has increasingly favoured Lachlan as his chosen heir in recent years.
When Mr Murdoch revealed last year he was stepping down as chairof Fox and News Corp, it was announced that his eldest son would become the sole chair of News Corp – while also continuing as executive chair and chief executive of Fox.
The main reason, it is thought, is politics. Lachlan is seen as more similar and aligned with his father’s right-wing views, while James, Elisabeth and Prudence are seen as more moderate in their beliefs.
Indeed, the media mogul’s decision to give Lachlan “permanent, exclusive control” came amid worries over the “lack of consensus” among his children about the future of the Murdoch brands, according to court documents seen by The New York Times.
Image: Elisabeth Murdoch, pictured in 2009. Pic: AP
James has been openly critical of Fox News – and recently endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris for president – while his sister Elisabeth has also “privately expressed discomfort about being associated with Fox News”, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper, which is owned by Mr Murdoch, also reported that “putting more power in Lachlan’s hands is meant to ensure stability at the businesses and avoid a confusing ownership structure in coming years”.
It quoted sources who said Mr Murdoch had been “dismayed that James and his wife seemed to be embarrassed by Fox yet were happy to enjoy the fruits of its financial success”, with the two not said to be on speaking terms.
Image: Mr Murdoch turned 93 earlier this year. Pic: PA
So what’s going to happen?
Despite the family rift, there is one thing the Murdochs involved agree on – they do not want their media rivals to feast on their fallout.
Consequently, the hearing to settle the dispute is being held in private – despite attempts from news agencies to grant public access – behind closed doors at the Washoe County Courthouse in Reno, Nevada, with probate commissioner Edmund J Gorman Jr due to rule on the case.
An earlier hearing concluded that Mr Murdoch could change the terms of the trust – if he could demonstrate he was acting in good faith, for the sole benefit of his heirs.
If the billionaire wins, News Corp and Fox are expected to continue along the same path after his death under Lachlan’s leadership, with, for example, Fox News continuing to loudly back the Republican Party in the US.
However, if the three siblings win, a battle over the future of the firms is likely to ensue. In theory, they could challenge the political leaning of Murdoch’s newspapers and channels, or even sell them off – as they could out-vote Lachlan on key decisions.
A third possibility is a compromise or some other kind of settlement being reached. Talks have reportedly been held in recent weeks over James and his sisters selling their stakes in the trust. However, these are said to have failed – possibly due to the potentially high sums involved.
Image: Rupert Murdoch with his sons Lachlan (left) and James (right) at his wedding to Jerry Hall in 2016. Pic: Reuters
The Murdochs involved have made no public statement on the case, with their spokespeople either declining to comment or not responding to requests.
It also comes amid uncertain times for the future of the news industry.
In an interview earlier this summer with Sky News Australia – which is separate from Sky News in the UK – Mr Murdoch predicted that printed newspapers will die out within 15 years due to changes in the ways people consume news.
If he is right, some of the tough questions facing his successors could be far bigger than just which party to back.
The former BT Group chief Philip Jansen is being lined up as the next chairman of Heathrow Airport as Britain’s biggest aviation hub prepares to deliver an expansion costing close to £50bn.
Sky News has learnt that Mr Jansen, who chairs the FTSE-100 marketing services group WPP, is in advanced talks with Heathrow’s board and shareholders about taking on the role.
If the discussions reach a successful conclusion, sources said an announcement could come within weeks.
Mr Jansen is said to have emerged as the frontrunner from a shortlist of candidates compiled by headhunters at Russell Reynolds Associates.
His experience as the boss of BT, a regulated utility, is said to have been key to his selection as the preferred candidate.
Mr Jansen has also run companies including MyTravel and Worldpay.
The appointment of a successor to Lord Deighton, who has held the post for nine years, comes at a critical time for Heathrow.
In August, the airport submitted a revised expansion plan consisting of a third runway costing £21bn, £12bn for a new terminal and stand capacity, and £15bn to modernise the current airport through the expansion of Terminal 2.
The existing Terminal 3 would ultimately be closed.
Heathrow handled a record 83.9 million passengers in 2024 and is adamant that a third runway is essential to the growth of Britain’s economy, given the volume of exports which pass through the site.
“It has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow,” the airport’s chief executive, Thomas Woldbye, said in August.
“We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity.
“With a green light from government and the correct policy support underpinned by a fit for purpose regulatory model, we are ready to mobilise and start investing this year in our supply chain across the country.
“We are uniquely placed to do this for the country; it is time to clear the way for take-off.”
The expansion remains opposed by many airlines alarmed by the prospective increase in charges to use the airport, as well
It has, however, been backed by the government, with Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, saying that a third runway “would unlock further growth, boost investment, increase exports, and make the UK more open and more connected as part of our Plan for Change”.
Heathrow’s next chairman will lead a board dominated by representatives of the airport’s principal shareholders.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:37
‘Serious questions’ after Heathrow fire
The airport said it would implement the recommendations of a review conducted by former transport secretary Ruth Kelly.
Heathrow’s search for a new chairman comes months after the most significant changes to its ownership structure in years.
Ardian, a French investment group, now owns 32.6% of the company following a series of transactions over the last 12 months.
Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund has also become an investor.
Heathrow has never formally announced Lord Deighton’s intention to step down, other than a disclosure in its annual report in which he wrote:
“In light of the recent changes to the HAHL [Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited] board…the nominations committee…has asked me to extend my appointment for a limited period to help ensure a smooth transition whilst new non-executive shareholder directors become familiar with the business and a new chair is appointed.
“I have therefore agreed to extend my role as chair for a limited period to ensure continuity and stability on the HAHL Board during this period of transition.”
A Heathrow spokesperson declined to comment, while Mr Jansen could not be reached for comment.
The first Post Office Capture conviction has now been formally referred to the Court of Appeal, marking a major milestone in the IT scandal.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) made the decision to refer the case of sub-postmistress Patricia Owen back in July.
Mrs Owen was convicted of theft by a jury in 1998, based on evidence from the faulty IT software Capture.
She was given a suspended prison sentence and fought to clear her name afterwards – but died in 2003.
Capture software was used in 2,500 branches between 1992 and 1999.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:45
The first Capture conviction was sent for appeal in July
It is the first time a conviction based on Capture – the predecessor to the Horizon system at the centre of the wider Post Office scandal – has reached the Court of Appeal.
It comes after Sky News revealed that a damning report into Capture, which could help overturn convictions, had been unearthed after nearly 30 years.
An investigation found the Post Office knew about the report at the time and continued to prosecute sub-postmasters based on Capture evidence.
Mrs Owen’s family submitted an application to the CCRC in January 2024 – her case has now been referred on the grounds that her prosecution was an “abuse of process”.
A ‘touchstone case’ for victims
Lawyers have said that if Mrs Owen is exonerated posthumously in the Court of Appeal, it may “speed up” the handling of others.
The CCRC is also continuing to investigate more than 30 other “pre-Horizon” convictions.
CCRC chair, Dame Vera Baird, also told Sky News in the summer it could be a “touchstone case” for other victims.
Juliet Shardlow, Mrs Owen’s daughter, has been fighting to clear her mother’s name for years.
She told Sky News the family were “so pleased” her case had finally been referred.
“This has been a very long journey for us as a family and we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.
“It’s just sad that mum isn’t here to see it.
“The good news is that once mum’s case is heard in the High Court, it will pave the way for all the other Capture victims.”
The Post Office has previously said it is “determined that past wrongs are put right and continue to support the government’s work in this area as well as fully co-operate with the Criminal Cases Review Commission”.
Britain’s hopes of becoming a critical minerals superpower have been dealt a severe blow after one of its leading companies abandoned its plans to build a rare earths refinery near Hull.
Pensana had pledged to build a £250m refinery on the banks of the Humber, to process rare earths that would have then been used to make magnets for electric cars and wind turbines.
The plant promised to create 126 jobs and was due to receive millions of pounds of government funding.
However, Sky News has learnt that Pensana has decided to scrap the Hull plant and will instead move its refining operations to the US.
Pensana’s chairman, Paul Atherley, said the company had taken the decision after the Trump administration committed to buying rare earths from an American mine, Mountain Pass, at a guaranteed price – something no government in Europe had done.
“That’s repriced the market – and Washington is looking to do more of these deals, moving at an absolute rate of knots,” he said.
“Europe and the UK have been talking about critical minerals for ages. But when the Americans do it, they go big and hard, and make it happen. We don’t; we mostly just talk about it.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:18
Can Trump win the mineral war?
The decision comes at a crucial juncture in critical minerals and geopolitics. China produces roughly 90% of all finished rare earth metals – exotic elements essential for the manufacture of many technology, energy and military products.
Pensana had been seen as Britain’s answer to the periodic panics about the availability of rare earths. The site at Saltend Chemicals Park was chosen by the government to launch its critical minerals strategy in 2022.
Visiting for the official groundbreaking, the then business and energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: “This incredible facility will be the only one of its kind in Europe and will help secure the resilience of Britain’s supplies into the future.”
He pledged a government grant to support the scheme. That grant was never received because Pensana never built its plant.
Image: Paul Atherley and Kwasi Kwarteng at a groundbreaking ceremony for the plant in July 2022. Pic: Pensana
Mr Atherley said he is optimistic about another project he’s involved with, to bring lithium refining to Teesside through another company, Tees Valley Lithium.
But, he said, rare earth processing is far more complex, energy-intensive and expensive, making it unviable in the UK, for the time being.
The decision is a further blow for Britain’s chemicals industry, which has faced a series of closures in recent months, including that of Vivergo, a biofuels refiner based in the same chemicals park where Pensana planned to locate its refinery.
Producers warn that Britain’s record energy costs – higher than most other leading economies – are stifling its economy and triggering an outflow of businesses.