Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Ista]

A series of posts have been removed as they were completely off topic.

[Eskimo]

The mail has filed an appeal against the summary judgement

https://www.newsweek.com/tabloid-app...awsuit-1586318

[yukari]

Latest hearing in High Court battle between Meghan and Mail On Sunday.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...e-b933261.html

[ACO]

So Jason Knauf and the palace lawyers deny the Mail’s claim that they hold copyright. Hopefully this ends today.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0oCSlAW...jpg&name=large

Also revealed is that Knauf states he regrets coming forward sooner to deny the Mail claim. They all but admit had this happened than this hearing would be pointless as this was all the defense had.

I am glad this is almost over.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by _Heather_

Very well said. Excellent explanation. And honestly, I feel like that's exactly what these two just can't seem to understand. Sure, they might win a battle or feel like they're standing on the moral high ground for a bit but the truth is, they're just continually fueling the fire. While they might be trying to "own" the tabloids, all they're really doing is being used by them for the publicity and the draw and they just keep handing them more and more material to work with.

And perhaps that really is the point now - to keep getting publicity.

[Curryong]

This legal case would have been finished in March if the newspaper group hadn’t decided to ask for permission to appeal and thus dragged it out once more. Also Jason Knauf, as ACO mentioned could have come forward earlier to deny the Mail claim and stated that he regretted he didn’t. That delay also prolonged things, necessitating another hearing and keeping it in the public arena.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...al-family-news

[ACO]

Meghan has won.

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/stat...38126219530242

Now according to the hearing documents Meghan is seeking the Mail on Sunday reveal how much profits they gained through the stories about the letter and trial. Obviously they are fighting it. This is all related to the amount of damages they will award Meghan. This could end up quite costly for the Mail on Sunday.

[Royalist.in.NC]

It looks like the newspaper will have to pay 90% of Meghan’s court costs.

[yukari]

More about Jason Knauf's letter:
We made huge efforts to protect Meghan Markle’s privacy, says former press secretary

(It's Telegraph so it's behind paywall and I can't find it's archive file, PM me if you want the full article)

(...)

Although the Duchess had admitted that Mr Knauf, a close confidante who is now the chief executive of the Royal Foundation, "provided feedback" in the form of "general ideas," his solicitors emphatically denied that he was a co-author or had any copyright claim over the contents.

Lawyers for the Queen also stated that copyright did not belong to the Crown, paving the way for the Duchess to secure a full victory on her claim.

Mr Knauf's solicitors insisted in their letter, released by the High Court on Thursday, that he remained "strictly neutral". But they said he wanted to set out "his account of the background to and context of his involvement" in advising the Duchess over the five-page missive.

"From 2016, Mr Knauf led extensive efforts to protect the privacy and reputation of the Duchess and, as and when directed by her, the privacy of her parents," the letter said.

"This included drafting a press statement in November 2016, issued in his own name, condemning racist and sexist coverage of Ms Markle, as she then was, and other regular interventions – directly to media and through the Independent Press Standards Organisation – to request privacy both for her and for her parents."

This support continued "even after the Mail On Sunday reported that Mr Markle had allegedly been cooperating with press photographers" shortly before his daughter married Prince Harry in May 2018.

"Mr Knauf and his colleagues made significant efforts over many months to protect Mr Markle and to object to intrusions into his privacy, in addition to the steps that were regularly taken to object to coverage of the duchess herself, where this was perceived to be unfair or untrue," the letter said.

(...)

[Curryong]

Well, that gives the lie to assertions that are often made (and by Thomas himself) that he was left to swing in the breeze completely unprotected and alone when Meghan became engaged. It also shows that Thomas was contacted on Meghan’s behalf by KP staff before the wedding, contrary to stories stating otherwise that have appeared in the British Press.

Anyway, I’m glad Meghan has had this win. Hopefully the newspaper group will now drop all appeals to the High Court, publish an apology in the Mail on Sunday and just pay the costs involved in Meghan bringing this case.

[Hallo girl]

"Mr Knauf and his colleagues made significant efforts over many months to protect Mr Markle and to object to intrusions into his privacy, in addition to the steps that were regularly taken to object to coverage of the duchess herself, where this was perceived to be unfair or untrue," the letter said.
The last part of this is also interesting.

[Curryong]

The period Knauf is addressing in his court documents is that period of the dating and then engagement before the royal wedding and just after it, not later events.

The 2016 letter Jason mentions in the documents was issued in Prince Harry’s name and contained Harry’s sentiments even if it was largely composed by Jason Knauf.

[Ghost]

Hello, everyone!
This is my first post. It seems that the appeal for ANL has been granted. Hearing in October.

https://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/g...se_id=20210943

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rt-ruling.html

Duchess of Sussex: Court of Appeal grants The Mail On Sunday permission to appeal against High Court privacy and copyright summary judgments

[yukari]

So these two Times articles by Valentine Low are subject of legal complaint by Meghan:

William and Kate feared private talks with Harry would be leaked

Meghan walked out of Fiji engagement over feud with UN Women, says Robert Lacey book

But still nothing on his article about bullying allegation from March.
And why complain to The Times? Why not suing Lacey?

[UglyAmerican]

I'm curious about their rationale for suing over the first article. Unless I missed something, it's all about how William and Kate (supposedly) don't trust Harry and Meghan. Since it's all about William and Kate's feelings, the only way to show it's false would be to get William and Kate to say it's false. Even if it is false, I can't imagine either of them being willing to testify about those feelings in court just to appease Meghan's desire for better PR.

EDIT: And why on Earth is Meghan suing over Lacey allegedly making false claims about Harry's activities and interactions during a trip where Meghan wasn't even there?

[yukari]

Originally Posted by UglyAmerican

(...)

EDIT: And why on Earth is Meghan suing over Lacey allegedly making false claims about Harry's activities and interactions during a trip where Meghan wasn't even there?

She can do that for the Fiji article. In my opinion, the Fiji article is Valentine Low writing about Lacey book which contains story about Fiji trip. So if it's not true, it should be Lacey, not Low.

[Heavs]

It's always interesting to see what they do and don't complain over.

Both those articles are excepts from Robert Lacey's book so if they have a problem they should sue him. I doubt they have a problem with the articles where Lacey states that the Firm should bend over backwards to give them what they want, even if they're not an accurate picture of the situation.

I suppose with the William and Kate one Harry can say "but we did talk and no one's anger was on display during the service" rather than go after what William and Kate are alleged to have thought. Even though Sussex sources have complained about Harry feeling left out and upset about everyone being upset with him.

[UglyAmerican]

Originally Posted by Heavs

I doubt they have a problem with the articles where Lacey states that the Firm should bend over backwards to give them what they want, even if they're not an accurate picture of the situation.

Didn't one of those articles/excerpts basically say that Meghan completely made up the bit about skin color being connected to titles and security, and then follow that up with several paragraphs of rationalizations about why it didn't matter that it wasn't actually true? If I were her, that's the one I'd sue over... supposing I hadn't made the whole thing up, of course.

[Lori138]

Originally Posted by yukari

So these two Times articles by Valentine Low are subject of legal complaint by Meghan:

William and Kate feared private talks with Harry would be leaked

Meghan walked out of Fiji engagement over feud with UN Women, says Robert Lacey book

But still nothing on his article about bullying allegation from March.
And why complain to The Times? Why not suing Lacey?

Good grief, maybe Meghan should quit reading the papers and concentrate on her new baby and young son, it would certainly be better for her mental health then wondering what everyone thinks about articles in newspapers.