Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers

[otto]

Ah but she doesn't, she uses anonymous friends. Then you can claim ignorance when the whole thing goes pear shaped.

That is her claim - that although she used her 5 friends many times to speak to media on her behalf, today she claims she had no idea that they would speak to the media about the letter. It seems rather unbelievable.

She should step away while she is ahead, but I suspect that she will go forward with this lawsuit, even though there is a good possibility that it will end in more humiliation and a big hit to the pocketbook.

 

[Yvettea]

So why play right into MM’s hands. If TM and the newspaper had let it lie it would foil the plan (if there was a plan.)

MM is not a child but she is TM’s daughter. Rather than defend himself he should have thought of her. JMO he did nothing to enhance his own reputation. It’s ill-advised to try to build yourself up by tearing down someone else. I’ll let the judge sort it out. There is enough guilt to go around IMO.

 

[otto]

This is now a high stakes financial risk for Markle. She was offered a settlement, she refused. Since she lost the first round, she's now liable for costs. If she loses round 2, she'll be liable for defendant costs again. At this time, her costs are approximately £110,000.

"Associated Newspapers will also ask the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to pay their costs of in excess of £50,000 after the couple refused their offer to deal with the issue out of court to save the High Court having to set up an online hearing during the coronavirus crisis. Meghan's costs are said to have been £60,000-plus."​

Meghan Markle: Multiple claims dismissed in Mail on Sunday case | Daily Mail Online

 

[Luna20]

This is now a high stakes financial risk for Markle. She was offered a settlement, she refused. Since she lost the first round, she's now liable for costs. If she loses round 2, she'll be liable for defendant costs again. At this time, her costs are approximately £110,000.

"Associated Newspapers will also ask the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to pay their costs of in excess of £50,000 after the couple refused their offer to deal with the issue out of court to save the High Court having to set up an online hearing during the coronavirus crisis. Meghan's costs are said to have been £60,000-plus."​

Meghan Markle: Multiple claims dismissed in Mail on Sunday case | Daily Mail Online

She is notorious for putting herself in these circumstances and then placing blame on others for it. There were other ways more constructive that she could have chosen to avoid so much of this.

 

[otto]

So why play right into MM’s hands. If TM and the newspaper had let it lie it would foil the plan (if there was a plan.)

MM is not a child but she is TM’s daughter. Rather than defend himself he should have thought of her. JMO he did nothing to enhance his own reputation. It’s ill-advised to try to build yourself up by tearing down someone else. I’ll let the judge sort it out. There is enough guilt to go around IMO.

Markle is a 38 year old retired actor. We can stop using the word "child" in relation to Markle and her parents.

Didn't Harry repeatedly advise Markle's father to stop talking to the media? Did Markle think the rules and results were somehow different when she indirectly spoke to media through 5 friends?

Maybe Markle should have kept family information private rather than gossip about her letters and father to the friends who routinely shared her gossip with the media?

 

[Luna20]

Markle is a 38 year old retired actor. We can stop using the word "child" in relation to Markle and her parents.

Didn't Harry repeatedly advise Markle's father to stop talking to the media? Did Markle think the rules and results were somehow different when she indirectly spoke to media through 5 friends?

Maybe Markle should have kept family information private rather than gossip about her letters and father to the friends who routinely shared her gossip with the media?

Sadly she has done this with families of both sides. I don’t know how she thought the way she handled the surprise announcement would garner any praise. There was no reason for that and she threw the first volley but claims she hasn’t done anything that warrants a pause.

It defies logic and makes one wonder about motives.

 

[cody22]

Just marking my lurking spot.......moo

 

[otto]

Sadly she has done this with families of both sides. I don’t know how she thought the way she handled the surprise announcement would garner any praise. There was no reason for that and she threw the first volley but claims she hasn’t done anything that warrants a pause.

It defies logic and makes one wonder about motives.

We discuss injustice collectors in the context of mass murder, but not everyone who collects perceived injustice resorts to murder. They do however find a way to keep the conflict alive and continuous over the years. As you say, "it defies logic, and the motive is elusive."

"An “Injustice Collector” is someone who sees injustices in many, if not most things that happen to them in life. Injustice Collectors can misperceive the smallest slights and turn them into major events and they can accumulate these injustices for years. Their response to these injustices—real or perceived—can be extremely disproportionate to the original grievance. ... This tendency of extreme overreaction can often be seen in their history, in prior interactions with others over insignificant issues."​

Injustice Collectors and Leakage

 

[Luna20]

We discuss injustice collectors in the context of mass murder, but not everyone who collects perceived injustice resorts to murder. They do however find a way to keep the conflict alive and continuous over the years. As you say, "it defies logic, and the motive is elusive."

"An “Injustice Collector” is someone who sees injustices in many, if not most things that happen to them in life. Injustice Collectors can misperceive the smallest slights and turn them into major events and they can accumulate these injustices for years. Their response to these injustices—real or perceived—can be extremely disproportionate to the original grievance. ... This tendency of extreme overreaction can often be seen in their history, in prior interactions with others over insignificant issues."​

Injustice Collectors and Leakage

True, and look at the disruption that has taken place in a short period of time. In my opinion this is someone who is out of control-unstable.

Looking back on the articles from DM they were spot on in what they were reporting.

 

[otto]

It comes down to two points:

• as the owner of the letter, did Markle's father have the right to distribute it, and
• did Markle breach her own privacy by spreading rumour about the letter with up to 5 friends?

Was it reasonable for Markle's father to release the letter to refute the 5-friend media release that included the letter?

I suppose we have to wait to see whether Markle decides to walk away and focus on more positive pursuits, or to parade her 5 friends through the courts to explain why they revealed contents of the letter to the media.

"The duchess is suing for breach of privacy and copyright infringement after articles reproduced parts of a letter she sent Thomas Markle.
...

At trial, the case will turn on whether the duchess had a reasonable expectation that the letter written to her father would remain private and there was no overriding public interest in publishing it."​

Newspaper wins first round in Meghan privacy case

 

[otto]

I'm guessing all 5-friends will admit that, in at least one instance, they passed scripted information to media. That's once too often to win this lawsuit.

Mulroney shouldn't drag the Brian Mulroney name through mud and court cases.

Markle could not have any expectation of privacy as soon as she shared the information with 3rd party 5-friend gossipers.

Besides, her father owns the letter. Markle owns the words and will always be referenced when the owner, her father, presents the letter. Markle loses. Although, it probably makes for a good super hero cartoon character story.

 

[Boxer]

Bleak

I'm guessing all 5-friends will admit that, in at least one instance, they passed scripted information to media. That's once too often to win this lawsuit.

Mulroney shouldn't drag the Brian Mulroney name through mud and court cases.

Markle could not have any expectation of privacy as soon as she shared the information with 3rd party 5-friend gossipers.

Besides, her father owns the letter. Markle owns the words and will always be referenced when the owner, her father, presents the letter. Markle loses. Although, it probably makes for a good super hero cartoon character story.

Is privacy the issue? I thought it is ownership.

We discuss injustice collectors in the context of mass murder, but not everyone who collects perceived injustice resorts to murder. They do however find a way to keep the conflict alive and continuous over the years. As you say, "it defies logic, and the motive is elusive."

"An “Injustice Collector” is someone who sees injustices in many, if not most things that happen to them in life. Injustice Collectors can misperceive the smallest slights and turn them into major events and they can accumulate these injustices for years. Their response to these injustices—real or perceived—can be extremely disproportionate to the original grievance. ... This tendency of extreme overreaction can often be seen in their history, in prior interactions with others over insignificant issues."​

Injustice Collectors and Leakage

Excusing unjustice? Amazing.

Court said that dishonesty by the press was not relevant.

So yes, she will probably lose, but good for her for trying.

 

[otto]

Bleak

Is privacy the issue? I thought it is ownership.


Excusing unjustice? Amazing.

Court said that dishonesty by the press was not relevant.

So yes, she will probably lose, but good for her for trying.

"The duchess is suing for breach of privacy and copyright infringement after articles reproduced parts of a letter she sent Thomas Markle.
...

At trial, the case will turn on whether the duchess had a reasonable expectation that the letter written to her father would remain private and there was no overriding public interest in publishing it.

Many lawyers take the view that a letter written to a relative concerning a family relationship is by definition private, no matter who the author is or what rank they hold."​

Newspaper wins first round in Meghan privacy case

Possession is 9/10 of the law. Markle's father owns the letter. He has it in his hands. The letters contain words written by Markle - so her name should be attached as author each time the letter is published.

No one cares what "many lawyers" think if those lawyers cannot break the argument into the facts of the case.

Others take the position that if the author of the letter spews the contents of the letter all over her 5-friend gossips, then she cannot have any expectation of privacy. Furthermore, she doesn't own the letter.

 

[otto]

Bleak
Is privacy the issue? I thought it is ownership.
Excusing unjustice? Amazing.
Court said that dishonesty by the press was not relevant.
So yes, she will probably lose, but good for her for trying.

The courts said that this lawsuit about the letter could not turn into a broad witch-hunt intended to muzzle media.

Twist on "dishonesty" needs a link.

 

[Boxer]

The courts said that this lawsuit about the letter could not turn into a broad witch-hunt intended to muzzle media.

Twist on "dishonesty" needs a link.

Here is one. Link below.

I would like to to see where the Court used the term "witch hunt." Is that a quote from Judge Warby? Do you have a link for that?

Setback for Harry and Meghan in Legal Battle With U.K. Tabloids

 

[squareandrabbet]

I’ve been torn between “let it go”, and “fight the behemoth”- which helps everyone if you win, and makes it worse for everyone if you lose. But ultimately, at this point I think they are doing more damage to their marital goodwill than what it’s worth. And if they ever divorce... media will be brutal and long-term. They should stay the hell away from Hollywood, media & spotlight & carve a new path. Jmo, moo...

yes, especially because, well... how many people ‘win’ these cases??

Lots of plagiarism cases abound for movie screenplays, popular songs, etc. In the overwhelming majority of these situations, the judge tells person claiming plagiarism to go pound sand, and rules in favor of the entertainment conglomerate that puts out the music/movies/etc. The Hollywood Writers Guild is currently in the process of losing a head-to-head /lawsuit with huge wealthy talent agencies over royalties. Etc., etc., I could go on.

 

[Boxer]

MOO yes agree.
MM just doesn't want to go down with a fight.

Palace machinators both royal and staff use the press to target people . Warby ruling the press being dishonest about their motivation for articles is unfortunate, and gives cover to probable direct palace source/s motivating a negative press campaign.
MOO Unfortunately the case is a little too narrow to address the real issue of defamation.

 

[otto]

Here is one. Link below.

I would like to to see where the Court used the term "witch hunt." Is that a quote from Judge Warby? Do you have a link for that?

Setback for Harry and Meghan in Legal Battle With U.K. Tabloids

That link requires a subscription.

No, I haven't seen the phrase "witch hunt" associated with Markle's lawsuit.

 

[Boxer]

That link requires a subscription.

I don't have a subscription and was able to read. Sorry. I will copy here for you.


The New York Times
SUBSCRIBE NOWLOG IN

Setback for Harry and Meghan in Legal Battle With U.K. Tabloids
A judge ruled that The Mail on Sunday would not be judged on whether it had acted dishonestly in publishing a letter from the Duchess of Sussex to her father, Thomas Markle.

Image

Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, have both filed lawsuits against British tabloid newspapers.Credit...Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images

• Share on Facebook
• Post on Twitter
• Mail

By Mark Landler

• May 1, 2020

LONDON — In a setback to Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, in their bitter legal battle against the British tabloids, a high court judge struck down key claims on Friday in a lawsuit that Meghan brought against The Mail on Sunday for publishing a letter she sent to her father.

The judge, Mark Warby, ruled that the newspaper would not be judged on whether it had acted dishonestly; had stirred up conflict between Meghan, who is also known as the Duchess of Sussex, and her father, Thomas Markle; or had published offensive and intrusive articles about the duchess.

Instead, Justice Warby said, the court would decide only whether the publication of the letter had violated her privacy. The duchess’s law firm, Schillings, said she would press forward with the case but expressed disappointment that the judge did not consider the newspaper’s motives relevant.


“We are surprised to see that his ruling suggests that dishonest behavior is not relevant,” the firm said in a statement. “We feel honesty and integrity are at the core of what matters; or as it relates to The Mail on Sunday.”

ADVERTISEMENT
Lawyers for the duchess said that they would not appeal the decision but argued that the rest of their case remained strong.

“The duchess’ rights were violated,” the firm said. “The legal boundaries around privacy were crossed. As part of this process, the extremes to which The Mail on Sunday used distortive, manipulative and dishonest tactics to target the Duchess of Sussex have been put on full display.”

At the heart of the case is an anguished, five-page letter that the duchess wrote to Mr. Markle, a former Hollywood lighting designer, in August 2018, four months after he was a no-show at her wedding to Prince Harry. In it, she accused her father of breaking her heart into a “million pieces” by speaking to the tabloids about their estrangement while refusing to take her phone calls.

ADVERTISEMENT
The Mail on Sunday obtained the letter, presumably from Mr. Markle, and published it in February 2019. The paper’s owner, Associated Newspapers, contended that Mr. Markle had been under no legal obligation to keep the letter private and that the duchess, as a public figure, should not have expected it to remain confidential.

Image
A newsstand in London in January. Harry and Meghan have long had an adversarial relationship with the British press.Credit...Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA, via Shutterstock
Prince Harry, who has his own lawsuit pending against the tabloids for allegedly hacking his cellphone voice mail, has lashed out against the tabloids’ treatment of his wife. He likened it to the relentless coverage of his mother, Princess Diana, which ended in her death in 1997 after a high-speed car chase by photographers.

Last month, the couple, who have moved to Los Angeles, notified The Mail and three other tabloids — The Sun, The Daily Mirror and The Daily Express — that they would no longer engage with them. In a letter, a spokesman for the couple accused the papers of “distorted, false or invasive” coverage.

In his 33-page decision, Justice Warby said The Mail’s claim that the letter had not been private or confidential “might seem at first a little surprising.” He said the case had similarities to a lawsuit that Harry’s father, Prince Charles, brought against The Mail’s publisher after it published details of a diary he kept during a visit to Hong Kong to witness the city’s handover to China in 1997. Charles won that case.

ADVERTISEMENT
Still, the judge expressed sympathy for the newspaper’s argument that Meghan’s claims about its behavior were either not adequately argued or irrelevant to her claim of privacy infringement.

“I do not consider that the allegations struck out on that basis go to the ‘heart’ of the case, which at its core concerns the publication” of the letter, he concluded.

The Sussexes’ Tense Media Relationship
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, Sues Mail on Sunday Over Publication of Letter
Oct. 1, 2019
Lawyers for Harry and Meghan Warn British Media Over Photos
Jan. 22, 2020
Harry and Meghan Cut Off U.K. Tabloids
April 20, 2020
‘It’s Hard’: Prince Harry and Meghan Speak of Strain of Royal Life in New Documentary
Oct. 21, 2019
Mark Landler is the London bureau chief. In 27 years at The Times, he has been bureau chief in Hong Kong and Frankfurt, White House correspondent, diplomatic correspondent, European economic correspondent, and a business reporter in New York. @MarkLandler


More in Europe[/paste:font]
Image
Credit...Andrey Golovanov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Too Cold for an Oil Cut? Russia’s Move Reveals a Long-Running Bluff
May 4, 2020
Your Monday Briefing
May 4, 2020
More Readers, Fewer Ads: Britain’s Local Newspapers Are Struggling
May 4, 2020
Sign Up
ADVERTISEMENT
Site Information Navigation

• © 2020 The New York Times Company

• Contact Us
• Work with us
• Advertise
• Your Ad Choices
• Privacy
• Terms of Service
• Terms of Sale
• Site Map
• Help
• Subscriptions
• Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Access more of the Times by creating a free account or logging in.

 

[otto]

MOO yes agree.
MM just doesn't want to go down with a fight.

Palace machinators both royal and staff use the press to target people . Warby ruling the press being dishonest about their motivation for articles is unfortunate, and gives cover to probable direct palace source/s motivating a negative press campaign.
MOO Unfortunately the case is a little too narrow to address the real issue of defamation.

People need to pick their battles. We know that Markle wants to battle with her family, she has a long history of family conflict. In the role that she had with the Royal Family, was it wise to pick another battle with her father using the media?

I have no idea what she said in the letter, what her 5 friends said, or what her father said. I think most people could not care less about her family spat. However, people will sit up and pay attention when Markle decides to sue the media because of a letter that she did not own and which was not private at the time her father revealed some of the contents.