Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers
- Thread starter maggieg
- Start date
RobinCAL
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 1,170
- Reaction score
- 7,530
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,407
- Reaction score
- 117,717
ADMIN WARNING
This thread is to discuss the lawsuit. Many off topic posts have been removed.
Do NOT bring the same mean-spirited discussion to this thread that resulted in the closure of the British Royal Family thread.
The next member to reintroduce such off topic posts, and those who respond to it, will all receive a minimum 2 week Time Out from the board.
This thread is to discuss the lawsuit. Many off topic posts have been removed.
Do NOT bring the same mean-spirited discussion to this thread that resulted in the closure of the British Royal Family thread.
The next member to reintroduce such off topic posts, and those who respond to it, will all receive a minimum 2 week Time Out from the board.
RobinCAL
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 1,170
- Reaction score
- 7,530
Catching up... from your link:
Judge Mark Warby “ruled that ‘the disclosures were manifestly excessive and hence unlawful’... ‘She enjoyed a reasonable expectation that the contents would remain private and not be published to the world at large by a national newspaper; the defendant's conduct in publishing the contents of the letter was a misuse of her private information’.”
Glad to see this. It’s a win for MM, but more so a win for the rest of us. People shouldn’t have to sign their letters with the copyright symbol! I don’t believe the appeal will be successful. Moo
hot cawfeee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 1,458
I think its the old cautionary tale "be careful of whom you trust"......and she gave trust to the wrong person
Interesting, who do you that was?
Legally Bland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 8,793
- Reaction score
- 43,379
I haven't been following this, but aware there is a thread. Some judgements have just been published if anyone is interested:
Duchess of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd
Duchess of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd
hot cawfeee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2013
- Messages
- 2,269
- Reaction score
- 1,458
I haven't followed overmuch but I think some "friends and/or family" maybe didn't respect a boundary or at the worst saw some money to be made either by getting MM to keep quiet or sending info outright to the highest bidder........just MO of course....but sheesh !!! You know who your friends are when you are down and out and I guess now when you are "riding high" so to speak !!! So much for loyalty !!!!
Pay 90% of her legal fees.
A strong public apology.
And they have yet to enter the damages hearing.
They tried to crush her, and she fought back.
Meghan Markle to Receive Front-Page Apology From U.K. Tabloid for Printing Part of Letter to Her Dad
A strong public apology.
And they have yet to enter the damages hearing.
They tried to crush her, and she fought back.
Meghan Markle to Receive Front-Page Apology From U.K. Tabloid for Printing Part of Letter to Her Dad
From your link...
Apology must be on front page, with notice & details inside. Online site must have apology posted for 1 week. 90% legal fees estimated at 1.88M. Damages TBD in April or May. Ouch. Will media learn from this I hope?
MOO, it's the people who wish to hear and are willing to click/pay to see negative things about someone they dislike.
That profit potential drives some media to cross the line from some form of fact based criticism into fiction and criminal intrusion.
MOO the M haters have not yet faced the fact that many haters hate M on race, and that is the company they are in. They want to believe M has bad character, and "that" is why they dislike her.
It's Allied business model to supply the lies to support readers' self deception.
The truth is, she doesn't have bad character. She is about as exemplary as people get.
I am glad to see a clear thinking from the judge.
It's an amazingly frothy case for him to have drawn, yet the merits were clear from the beginning.
MOO apparently UK is not a Georgia backwoods.
PrimeSuspect
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 10,594
- Reaction score
- 19,721
Yep, most definitely, they won't admit they're in that company though, it's MM's 'bad character' what drives their hatred, nothing to do with the other, *cough cough*.
Bad character?! She has good character, brought up well by her mother, everyone has flaws but those who despise her should look at themselves and their own family but maybe, therein lies the answer.
It's even more strange on a site like this, there's murderers, rapists, child abuses, dv cases, torturers, etc etc. and then, there's Meghan Markle.
These rag mags bring out the worst in human nature!
Last edited:
Warwick7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 9,829
- Reaction score
- 108,556
Duchess of Sussex admits she ‘misled’ court
The Duchess of Sussex has apologised for misleading a court over whether she had given authorisation for an aide to brief the authors of a biography about her.
The Duchess said she "had not remembered" email exchanges in which she was told about a two-hour meeting between her communications secretary and the writers of Finding Freedom.
On Wednesday, she apologised to the Court of Appeal after a series of emails were disclosed which showed she was aware of the meeting between Jason Knauf and the authors.
The emails revealed that the Duchess had provided briefing notes for Mr Knauf ahead of the meeting with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, and that the Duke of Sussex had offered to tell the authors what his wife had "been through" in the public eye.
Previously, the Duchess had told the court via her lawyers, Schillings, that she did not know whether her communications team had given information to the authors and insisted she had not been contacted by aides for "clarification of any matters relating to the book".
The Duchess of Sussex has apologised for misleading a court over whether she had given authorisation for an aide to brief the authors of a biography about her.
The Duchess said she "had not remembered" email exchanges in which she was told about a two-hour meeting between her communications secretary and the writers of Finding Freedom.
On Wednesday, she apologised to the Court of Appeal after a series of emails were disclosed which showed she was aware of the meeting between Jason Knauf and the authors.
The emails revealed that the Duchess had provided briefing notes for Mr Knauf ahead of the meeting with Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, and that the Duke of Sussex had offered to tell the authors what his wife had "been through" in the public eye.
Previously, the Duchess had told the court via her lawyers, Schillings, that she did not know whether her communications team had given information to the authors and insisted she had not been contacted by aides for "clarification of any matters relating to the book".
MajorHoople
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2019
- Messages
- 2,308
- Reaction score
- 13,599
I haven't been keeping up wth this thread, but at first glance it looks like a victory for MM.
Mail On Sunday will pay Meghan Markle just £1 in damages for privacy | Daily Mail Online
posted on - 5 January 2022
"The Mail On Sunday will pay the Duchess of Sussex just £1 in damages for invading her privacy after losing its appeal in a row over a letter sent to her estranged father, a court document reveals.
Meghan Markle sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over five articles that reproduced parts of a 'personal and private' letter to Thomas Markle in August 2018.
The 40-year-old Duchess won her case last year when a High Court judge ruled in her favour without a full trial - but ANL brought an appeal against that decision.
Then in November, ANL argued the case should go to a trial on Meghan's claims against the publisher - but the challenge was dismissed by Court of Appeal judges.
ANL, also the publisher of Mail Online, will also now not be appealing at the Supreme Court after considering the matter following the most recent judgment last month.
The publisher will also pay a confidential amount in damages for having 'infringed her copyright' by publishing parts of the letter to 77-year-old Mr Markle. ANL is also expected to cover much of Meghan's legal costs which could run into seven figures."
Mail On Sunday will pay Meghan Markle just £1 in damages for privacy | Daily Mail Online
posted on - 5 January 2022
"The Mail On Sunday will pay the Duchess of Sussex just £1 in damages for invading her privacy after losing its appeal in a row over a letter sent to her estranged father, a court document reveals.
Meghan Markle sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over five articles that reproduced parts of a 'personal and private' letter to Thomas Markle in August 2018.
The 40-year-old Duchess won her case last year when a High Court judge ruled in her favour without a full trial - but ANL brought an appeal against that decision.
Then in November, ANL argued the case should go to a trial on Meghan's claims against the publisher - but the challenge was dismissed by Court of Appeal judges.
ANL, also the publisher of Mail Online, will also now not be appealing at the Supreme Court after considering the matter following the most recent judgment last month.
The publisher will also pay a confidential amount in damages for having 'infringed her copyright' by publishing parts of the letter to 77-year-old Mr Markle. ANL is also expected to cover much of Meghan's legal costs which could run into seven figures."
Last edited:
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,833
- Reaction score
- 424,684
I'm not finding a thread for Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex vs Newspapers (Daily Mirror) but he gave evidence today, one day later than expected since he was delayed arriving UK after celebrating his daughter's 2nd birthday over the weekend. Judge was not happy...
In the suit, Prince Harry maintains articles by the Mirror dating back 20+ years the result of "phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.”
CNN is covering live. Trial may take as long as Thursday.
Link to the live trial blog:
Live updates: Prince Harry gives evidence in London phone hacking case
6 June 2023
Green warned that it will be "quite a race" to finish his questioning of Prince Harry by midday.
David Sherborne, Harry's lawyer, also said he was "concerned about the time I have to cross-examine" Daily Mirror reporter Jane Kerr.
"If we have to go into a further day, we will," the judge confirmed.
The judge also instructed Prince Harry not to discuss his evidence overnight.
In the suit, Prince Harry maintains articles by the Mirror dating back 20+ years the result of "phone hacking or unlawful information gathering.”
CNN is covering live. Trial may take as long as Thursday.
Link to the live trial blog:
Live updates: Prince Harry gives evidence in London phone hacking case
6 June 2023
Court closes for the day, warns case may run into Thursday
MGN barrister Andrew Green has paused his cross-examination as the court has closed for the day. Green will resume his questions when the court returns at 10.30am local time (5.30am ET) tomorrow morning.Green warned that it will be "quite a race" to finish his questioning of Prince Harry by midday.
David Sherborne, Harry's lawyer, also said he was "concerned about the time I have to cross-examine" Daily Mirror reporter Jane Kerr.
"If we have to go into a further day, we will," the judge confirmed.
The judge also instructed Prince Harry not to discuss his evidence overnight.