The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #2021  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:08 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I'm sorry that Harry has been told to pay some of the court costs of a rag that libelled him and was forced to concede that they did so in a legal judgement. That is quite unjust IMO.

However, in spite of the grudging and negative article linked above, it's clear that the Mail on Sunday did traduce him (there's a surprise!) and had to pay substantial damages. That the Invictus Games Foundation will benefit from this judgement is the best news of all.
I didn't pick that up , I thought it was his own legal costs, he asked for £35000 and was awarded £2500. What I should say is that his legal team asked for the amount.
I didnt realise he had to pay the mails costs as well.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2022  
Old 02-02-2021, 10:47 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,472
Well he certainly is making no friends. What is this the umpteenth time the Sussexes have been told off by a judge.

I hope they get it together. And I am tired of his attitude. I know you had a terrible thing happen to you in your childhood but we all need to love on. People have bigger problems.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-attacks-mail-on-sunday-after-libel-lawsuit-apology-9w7j7p222
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2023  
Old 02-02-2021, 12:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: tacoma, United States
Posts: 639
I hope both feel it was in their best interest. The cost out weigh the benefit's. This will bring the the reputation of being difficult and not worth dealing with them. Wonder if that is what they wanted?. Maybe Lawsuit #7 is already on the way. In that case if the tabloids don't want to deal with them in the future, who will?
Reply With Quote
  #2024  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,007
It's the Sussexes who don't want to deal with the tabloids not the other way round. Richard Palmer was complaining on his Twitter only the day before yesterday, ref the birth certificate stuff, that any enquiries to the Sussexes from most tabloids about any controversies concerning them (that the tabloids dream up) are brushed off to their representatives, who don't answer their enquiries. This is almost certainly because they know that whatever they say will be twisted to a certain narrative in forthcoming articles.

I wouldn't bother to speak to them either. Why should they? The tabloids have gone hammer and tongs on them both, especially Meghan, for three years and are not likely to stop. They don't owe these newspapers any favours.

And as for the law suits, it's a matter of principle. Harry had every right to sue. Those newspapers acknowledged they were telling lies and he won his court case.

And if I was famous and had a letter to my father published in a tabloid rag without my permission the last thing I'd do would be to sit back and just let it happen, which is what these papers bank on 99% of the time. I'd sue the socks off the paper involved. If it cost me my last shilling I wouldn't care. And I believe that to be Meghan's stance as well.

Sometimes principle comes before everything. Why should these tabloids get away with making people's lives a misery? It's a pity they don't get sued more often!
Reply With Quote
  #2025  
Old 02-03-2021, 02:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 752
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I didn't pick that up , I thought it was his own legal costs, he asked for £35000 and was awarded £2500. What I should say is that his legal team asked for the amount.
I didnt realise he had to pay the mails costs as well.
It was his legal costs not the Mail's costs. Costs follow the event so if you are successful you can recover your costs and outlays (such as court filing fees, the cost of expert reports etc) from the unsuccessful party but only the costs that are reasonably necessary in bringing the matter to a conclusion. So, as Harry was successful, he is entitled to have the Mail to pay those costs that the Judge thinks were reasonably necessary to bring the claim to a conclusion.

Harry's lawyers are entitled to charge him for all they work they did, which they estimated at 35,000 pounds. The Mail will pay 2,500 pounds which is what the Judge estimates were the reasonable costs of achieving the outcome and Harry gets the bill for the rest.

I should say, I'm basing this on the report in the Times linked to by Poppy. I haven't read the actual order.
Reply With Quote
  #2026  
Old 02-03-2021, 03:31 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyRaven View Post
Something tells me if the amount was huge, Harrys spokesman official or unofficial would have mentioned the amount. It’s like when Disney states that tons of people paid for Mulan on Disney Plus but won’t tell you the number. Assume it’s bad is the normal PR assumption
I would not draw any conclusions about the amount from the fact it has not been mentioned. It is standard procedure for it to be a term of a settlement that the terms not be disclosed, and if either party did disclose the amount they would be in breach of a court order.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #2027  
Old 02-03-2021, 05:56 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It's the Sussexes who don't want to deal with the tabloids not the other way round. Richard Palmer was complaining on his Twitter only the day before yesterday, ref the birth certificate stuff, that any enquiries to the Sussexes from most tabloids about any controversies concerning them (that the tabloids dream up) are brushed off to their representatives, who don't answer their enquiries. This is almost certainly because they know that whatever they say will be twisted to a certain narrative in forthcoming articles.

I wouldn't bother to speak to them either. Why should they? The tabloids have gone hammer and tongs on them both, especially Meghan, for three years and are not likely to stop. They don't owe these newspapers any favours.

And as for the law suits, it's a matter of principle. Harry had every right to sue. Those newspapers acknowledged they were telling lies and he won his court case.

And if I was famous and had a letter to my father published in a tabloid rag without my permission the last thing I'd do would be to sit back and just let it happen, which is what these papers bank on 99% of the time. I'd sue the socks off the paper involved. If it cost me my last shilling I wouldn't care. And I believe that to be Meghan's stance as well.

Sometimes principle comes before everything. Why should these tabloids get away with making people's lives a misery? It's a pity they don't get sued more often!

While that is true, there is a reason why most celebrities rarely sue tabloids, it's simply not worth it. Tabloids has been writing lies for YEARS and those celebrities know that even if they won a lawsuit, it wouldn't stop the tabloids to write another lie.

Harry should take a page from Jennifer Aniston's book, if the tabloids are to be believed, Jennifer has been pregnant for 3523 times now, and she simply ignored those ridiculous stories.

Or take an example from the Queen, how many stories have the tabloids wrote about the Queen is dying, and how she would make William & Kate the next King and Queen to spite Charles & Camilla? Yet the royal family never sue the tabloids for those stories either.

Harry should read the expression "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."
Reply With Quote
  #2028  
Old 02-03-2021, 06:54 AM
QueenMathilde's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyDrx View Post
While that is true, there is a reason why most celebrities rarely sue tabloids, it's simply not worth it. Tabloids has been writing lies for YEARS and those celebrities know that even if they won a lawsuit, it wouldn't stop the tabloids to write another lie.

Harry should take a page from Jennifer Aniston's book, if the tabloids are to be believed, Jennifer has been pregnant for 3523 times now, and she simply ignored those ridiculous stories.

Or take an example from the Queen, how many stories have the tabloids wrote about the Queen is dying, and how she would make William & Kate the next King and Queen to spite Charles & Camilla? Yet the royal family never sue the tabloids for those stories either.

Harry should read the expression "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."



Actually Jennifer Aniston famously sued the tabloids for setting up long lens cameras and taking a picture of her naked in her own house. The judge agreed they had no right to do this. But she does ignore minor things and I don't think the tabloid stories about the Sussexes has been any worse than ones about other royals - they've taken pictures of Kate topless and with her skirt blowing up. At least they didn't do that to Meghan. They'd do better to ignore them - they would have moved on to the Kardashian's divorce eventually. Now they will never leave the Sussexes alone. Or worse they will ignore them entirely and they will get no promotion for their projects since they also aren't doing any social media. They need some publicity for what they do or there's no point in their doing anything.
Reply With Quote
  #2029  
Old 02-03-2021, 07:08 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 212
Or, quoting Newsweek article above:

Quote:
The judge's ruling said statements like the one the prince's lawyer made "can serve a valuable function in publicising the claimant's vindication" after the case has been settled out of court.

However, Nicklin also stressed that "the court will not permit them to be misused" and added that a "claimant cannot seek to use a statement in open court as a platform for collateral attacks on the defendant."
Reply With Quote
  #2030  
Old 02-03-2021, 07:29 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
I didn't pick that up , I thought it was his own legal costs, he asked for £35000 and was awarded £2500. What I should say is that his legal team asked for the amount.
I didnt realise he had to pay the mails costs as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
It was his legal costs not the Mail's costs. Costs follow the event so if you are successful you can recover your costs and outlays (such as court filing fees, the cost of expert reports etc) from the unsuccessful party but only the costs that are reasonably necessary in bringing the matter to a conclusion. So, as Harry was successful, he is entitled to have the Mail to pay those costs that the Judge thinks were reasonably necessary to bring the claim to a conclusion.

Harry's lawyers are entitled to charge him for all they work they did, which they estimated at 35,000 pounds. The Mail will pay 2,500 pounds which is what the Judge estimates were the reasonable costs of achieving the outcome and Harry gets the bill for the rest.

I should say, I'm basing this on the report in the Times linked to by Poppy. I haven't read the actual order.

As per the excellent explanation by VictoriaB, the unsuccessful party may be ordered to pay the legal costs of their opponent in full or in part.

In respect to the libel case, the Mail accepted that its allegations were false and so was ordered to pay a portion of the Duke's costs.

In respect to the costs case, the Duke had his application declared "manifestly disproportionate" by the judge and so was ordered to pay a portion of the Mail's costs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
However, in spite of the grudging and negative article linked above,
The articles linked above are quoting or recapping court filings. They are not taking a positive or negative view of the statements made in the documents by the judge and the lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #2031  
Old 02-03-2021, 09:00 AM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
Several posts above are not quite right. Harry is, in fact, paying a sum of the Mail's court costs, despite winning the case at hand.

The reason is that the judge determined Harry used the courts to launch a "collateral" attack on the Mail, unrelated to the suit. The judge has ordered Harry to pay the Mail the costs the Mail expended to defend those costs. The sequence of events is as follows.
  • Harry won the suit in question
  • An arranagement was being made for a statement to be released
  • Harry tried to maniputlate that statement to include not the facts of the case at hand, but some kind of groveling mea culpa on the part of the Mail, including all the drivel about how "defaming" him would increase veteran suicide
  • The Mail refused to include any such things in the statement, wanting to limit the statement to the case at hand, as righfully it should be
  • The Mail defended the above at court
  • Harry lost on this issue, and is being ordered to pay the court costs of the Mail related to it
  • It is in regards to THIS that the judge reprimanded Harry, saying, in essence that just becuase he has the money to use the courts to fight battles unrelated to cases at hand, he should not abuse the system in this way
Reply With Quote
  #2032  
Old 02-10-2021, 04:01 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,157
From Chris Ship's twitter, Justice Warby will be deciding on 11th February 4pm about Meghan's court case. The judgement will be hand down virtually on whether a summary judgement will be given or the case goes into full trial.
Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
NEW: The High Court judge ruling on Meghan's privacy legal action against the Mail on Sunday will hand down a judgement tomorrow.
Mr Justice Warby is deciding whether it should go to a full trial - or whether he will give a "summary judgement" and decide the case himself
12:55 AM · Feb 11, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
All of our previous reporting on the Duchess of Sussex's court action against the Mail on Sunday over the paper publishing the private letter she wrote to her father Thomas Markle, is here [Down pointing backhand index]
1:28 AM · Feb 11, 2021·Twitter Web App
https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...01277466615811
Reply With Quote
  #2033  
Old 02-10-2021, 05:46 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams View Post
Several posts above are not quite right. Harry is, in fact, paying a sum of the Mail's court costs, despite winning the case at hand.

The reason is that the judge determined Harry used the courts to launch a "collateral" attack on the Mail, unrelated to the suit. The judge has ordered Harry to pay the Mail the costs the Mail expended to defend those costs. The sequence of events is as follows.
  • Harry won the suit in question
  • An arranagement was being made for a statement to be released
  • Harry tried to maniputlate that statement to include not the facts of the case at hand, but some kind of groveling mea culpa on the part of the Mail, including all the drivel about how "defaming" him would increase veteran suicide
  • The Mail refused to include any such things in the statement, wanting to limit the statement to the case at hand, as righfully it should be
  • The Mail defended the above at court
  • Harry lost on this issue, and is being ordered to pay the court costs of the Mail related to it
  • It is in regards to THIS that the judge reprimanded Harry, saying, in essence that just becuase he has the money to use the courts to fight battles unrelated to cases at hand, he should not abuse the system in this way

Wow! I imagine those costs will be quite substantial.
Reply With Quote
  #2034  
Old 02-11-2021, 11:09 AM
eya eya is offline
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 18,957
"Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
BREAKING NEWS: Meghan WINS her High Court privacy claim against the Mail on Sunday - a judge has ruled. But Meghan will have to take her case to a TRIAL on the issue of copyright."

Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
The Judge said: "The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private. The Mail Articles interfered with that reasonable expectation."'

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv


https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/h...ewspapers-ltd/
__________________
#ΜΕΝΟΥΜΕ ΑΣΦΑΛΕΙΣ! #StaySafe! and the 2021!!
Reply With Quote
  #2035  
Old 02-11-2021, 11:45 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,498
Good for Meghan. I am sure The MOS will appeal but reading the notes it seems they have a very long short of winning. Even with the copyright it doesn't look to be in their favor but they can pursue a trial if they want. There will be another hearing to March 2 to determine that. My guess this will be officially settled then.
Reply With Quote
  #2036  
Old 02-11-2021, 11:47 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,380
From the press summary provided by the Court (available, together with the full judgement, at the judiciary.uk link posted by eya).

Misuse of private information

(1) The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private. The Mail Articles interfered with that reasonable expectation.

[...]

10. The limited exception referred to is that it was legitimate for Mr Markle and the defendant to use a part of the Letter to rebut a false suggestion in the People Article that the Letter represented some form of “olive branch” from the claimant to Mr Markle, but it was neither necessary nor proportionate for the Mail Articles to disclose any of the rest of the information in the Letter [124].

[...]

Infringement of copyright

[...]

(2) The Court finds for the claimant on infringement. Quantitatively, the Mail Articles copied a substantial part of the work (some 585 words of the total of 1,250) [149]. [...]

(3) The Court’s analysis for the purposes of stage two of the privacy claim leads to the conclusion that the defence of fair dealing for reporting current events could not succeed [152-155].

(4) This is not one of those rare cases where freedom of expression trumps copyright. There is no basis on which the court could conclude that, although the copying was not fair dealing, the public interest required the copyright to be overridden [156-157].

13. The Court is persuaded, however, that there should be a trial limited to issues relating to the ownership of copyright. The defence argues that a trial might show that the works are works of joint authorship or that there are several copyrights with different ownership. [...] The Court regards the defendant’s factual and legal case as occupying “the shadowland between improbability and unreality” [165]. It is “not easy to identify a useful litigious purpose” in a trial “the substantive effect of which would be, at best, to whittle down the remedies” [166]. But proportionality is not the criterion, the case cannot be described as fanciful, and these issues must go forward to a trial [167-168].


Disposal

14. There will be summary judgment for the claimant on the claim for misuse of private information, and on the other issues in the copyright claim. A hearing to decide matters consequential on this judgment, and directions for the next steps is fixed for 2 March 2021.
Reply With Quote
  #2037  
Old 02-11-2021, 11:57 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by eya View Post
"Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
BREAKING NEWS: Meghan WINS her High Court privacy claim against the Mail on Sunday - a judge has ruled. But Meghan will have to take her case to a TRIAL on the issue of copyright."
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Good for Meghan. I am sure The MOS will appeal but reading the notes it seems they have a very long short of winning. Even with the copyright it doesn't look to be in their favor but they can pursue a trial if they want. There will be another hearing to March 2 to determine that. My guess this will be officially settled then.
As I understand the summary, the majority of the copyright issues were also decided in her favor. The sole outstanding issue is whether her letter was jointly authored (even if the judge regards it as "improbable" at best). Apparently, if the defendant were to successfully make its case for joint authorship it would potentially affect the amount of damages to which the claimant is entitled.
Reply With Quote
  #2038  
Old 02-11-2021, 12:18 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,472
I think she will drop it now. This could potentially be very embarassing.
Reply With Quote
  #2039  
Old 02-11-2021, 12:24 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
Good for Meghan for winning. A lot of people thought she should have given up but I'm glad she stuck with her guns. This victory is not mentioned in the Mail (no surprise).
Reply With Quote
  #2040  
Old 02-11-2021, 12:25 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 469
Shocked to hear it and frankly, beggars belief. I cannot believe for one second that a single word of that letter was written without every intention of its being published in full: in perfect, flowing calligraphy; with a second, also picture-perfect copy made; with extensive external input and advice (what private letter, unintended to be read by anyone else, would need it?); shared extensively to and fro, first with friends, then with book authors; and the all-telling slip on air with Omid, now admitted to having spoken with her, that she wrote it with the intent of sharing it.

I have some oceanfront property in Arizona that might interest the right honorable sir.

Regardless, the rule of law has spoken resoundingly in her favor and I cannot predict that the remaining issue will go to trial, nor that an appeal will be launched.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication america anastasia 2020 baby names biography bridal gown britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace canada china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii elizabeth ii emperor family life fantasy movie fashion and style george vi hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hypothetical monarchs introduction jewellery jewelry king willem-alexander list of rulers mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal family plantinum jubilee pless prince charles of luxembourg prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde resusci anne royal court royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress solomon j solomon stuart thailand united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×