Sir Elton John and his ex-wife, Renate Blauel, have settled a legal case brought after details of the marriage were featured in the singer’s memoir and biopic. Blauel had sued John for allegedly breaching an agreement the pair signed after their divorce in 1988 which, her lawyers said, prevented either of them discussing the marriage or reasons for their separation. She asked for an injunction preventing future disclosures as well as damages and costs estimated at £3m. On Wednesday a representative for John, 73, released a short statement saying the dispute had been settled. “The parties are happy to announce that they have resolved this case, in a way that acknowledges Renate’s need for privacy,” the statement said. “For her part, Renate acknowledges that Elton has acted in a dignified and respectful way towards her in the last 30 years and has always been happy to help her. “They will not be discussing each other, or their marriage, in future and will be making no further comment about the case.” John and sound engineer Blauel met while he was recording his comeback album Too Low for Zero, which included the hit singles I’m Still Standing and I Guess That’s Why They Call it the Blues, in 1983. They married the following year at a lavish ceremony in Australia. The couple divorced in 1988 and John went on to marry David Furnish, with whom he has two children. Blauel has since kept a low profile. The legal case came after John referred to the marriage in his ghosted autobiography, Me, Elton John, and it was touched on in the biopic film Rocketman, with Blauel played by Celinde Schoenmaker. Blauel sued John for “repeated and flagrant” breaches of an agreement made after the divorce. Documents filed by Blauel’s legal team reveal that she adopted a new identity and went into hiding in a British village in an attempt to shed her connection to the singer. Five scenes from Rocketman were referenced in Blauel’s claim, including scenes showing their wedding day and sleeping in separate bedrooms. Another scene showed John in a group therapy session discussing the failure of his marriage “on account of his unhappiness and in particular his sexuality”, the claim read. In papers filed in John’s defence, lawyers denied breaching the agreement, arguing the details in the book and film were public knowledge and that the contract “applies only to private and confidential matters”.