The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1061  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:35 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
It wasn't said in court that Meghans favourite restaurant was linked to Jihadi John. That statement came from an earlier post of yours Duc (see that post below).

You have quoted what was actually said in court, that there were links to the kitchen supported by Meghan. But nothing was ever mentioned about a favourite restaurant, which Hallo Girl is quite right to point out.
It was said in Court by David Sherborne QC for the Duchess.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-sunday-starts
__________________

  #1062  
Old 04-27-2020, 02:53 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
It was said in Court by David Sherborne QC for the Duchess.
See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-sunday-starts
I mean we can argue this all day, but nowhere in that article does it state that Meghans favourite restaurant was linked to Jihadi John.

The only sentence that includes the word favourite is this one “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack – beloved of all millennials – is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.”

Got nothing to do with restaurants
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #1063  
Old 04-27-2020, 04:21 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,733
Let's move on now please - the Court Case is complicated enough to discuss without our adding our own debates on incidental details that really don't matter. Thank you.
__________________
JACK
  #1064  
Old 04-28-2020, 03:57 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,733
Please note that posts that go way beyond the scope of this thread and the topic have been edited and responses removed. Once again, please do not use this thread as a platform to debate things that are not directly related to the Court case.
__________________
JACK
  #1065  
Old 05-01-2020, 08:39 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,345
Harry & Meghan: Legal Action Against the Press - October 2019

After last weeks pre-trial hearing the Judge has ruled that some of the claims can be struck out.

So 3 things now struck out of Meghan's claim against Mail on Sunday:
1. the newspaper acted dishonestly, and in bad faith
2. the Mail on Sunday "deliberately dug up or stirred up conflict" between Meghan and her Dad
3. the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light”

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...605980160?s=21

A response for The Duchess’ spokespeople:

https://twitter.com/royanikkhah/stat...166979584?s=21

The Duchess has chosen not to appeal the decision.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
  #1066  
Old 05-01-2020, 08:44 AM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,656
I honestly believe that all the struch out claims are completely true!
*However*, the contents of the private communication between Meghan and her father were offered up to the Daily Mail by Meghan's father. It is not that they had to go digging for it. It was given to them and they skewed it and conformed it to fit their agenda.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
  #1067  
Old 05-01-2020, 09:04 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
I honestly believe that all the struch out claims are completely true!
*However*, the contents of the private communication between Meghan and her father were offered up to the Daily Mail by Meghan's father. It is not that they had to go digging for it. It was given to them and they skewed it and conformed it to fit their agenda.
I think though the legal issue is the paper had no right to publish the content even if given to them due to copyright laws.



LaRae
  #1068  
Old 05-01-2020, 09:08 AM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,378
As the case is about copyright and not defamation of character, it’s not really surprising. Those are separate issues. I’m sure they knew this ruling was likely but took a chance anyways.
  #1069  
Old 05-01-2020, 09:13 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
After last weeks pre-trial hearing the Judge has ruled that some of the claims can be struck out.

So 3 things now struck out of Meghan's claim against Mail on Sunday:
1. the newspaper acted dishonestly, and in bad faith
2. the Mail on Sunday "deliberately dug up or stirred up conflict" between Meghan and her Dad
3. the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light”

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...605980160?s=21

A response for The Duchess’ spokespeople:

https://twitter.com/royanikkhah/stat...166979584?s=21

The Duchess has chosen not to appeal the decision.


The full judgment, as well as a summary of the legal reasons for the decision, are to be found here:

HRH The Duchess of Sussex -v- Associated Newspapers | Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
  #1070  
Old 05-01-2020, 11:14 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,639
A media report about the judgment by the Guardian:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...n-sunday-owner
  #1071  
Old 05-01-2020, 11:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 566
What makes me wonder - and please correct me if I am wrong - the letter in question was given to the newspaper by Meghan's father. So, he, with full intent, breached her privacy.

Does she not have to sue him first? He was a perpatrator here in a direct way. The newspaper profited fom this, but indirectly via the actions of Meghan's father.

If the newspaper did something wrong, than it would be this breach of "copyright" laws. But has the jurisdiction not dramatically changed in this area in the last years to protect whistleblowers and press?

I mean, if Meghan claims "copyright" over this letter, then the letter in question got to have some importance at least. But she was an important VIP back then and her own father the informant-whistleblower. And if her father is protected from her and by her, so is the newspaper...
  #1072  
Old 05-01-2020, 11:39 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
What makes me wonder - and please correct me if I am wrong - the letter in question was given to the newspaper by Meghan's father. So, he, with full intent, breached her privacy.

Does she not have to sue him first? He was a perpatrator here in a direct way. The newspaper profited fom this, but indirectly via the actions of Meghan's father.

If the newspaper did something wrong, than it would be this breach of "copyright" laws. But has the jurisdiction not dramatically changed in this area in the last years to protect whistleblowers and press?

I mean, if Meghan claims "copyright" over this letter, then the letter in question got to have some importance at least. But she was an important VIP back then and her own father the informant-whistleblower. And if her father is protected from her and by her, so is the newspaper...
No, it's a copyright issue. He's allowed to sell it, like I can sell a book, but the papers (or anyone) can not publish it in the same way I can not publish the contents of a book not owned by me.
Whether Meghan (or the letter) is of importance is irrelevant.
  #1073  
Old 05-01-2020, 11:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,639
I find it really charming what Mail Online calls it a "victory" that the Judge struck out parts of Meghan's application because "public policy and the interest of the parties require that the trial should be kept strictly to the issues necessary for the fair determination of the dispute between the parties”. (quote from today's judgment).
So what was struck out were not parts that were wrongly introduced by Meghan's solicitors, but points that make no sense to investigate, as they were not important as legal points in relation to the cost of the investigation.
Meaning: even without a judgment on these points, the Court can find a judgment on the main points of Meghan's application. And these are all still in - breach of copyright etc.



Plus, the last sentece of the judgment is this:
Some aspects of the case that I have struck out at this stage may be revived if they are put in proper form.

Why talk about a "victory" if the whole case is still open?
  #1074  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:27 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 12,859
Exactly!

Honestly, I thought the points that were thrown out (with the exception of the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light” were all fluff and had nothing to do with the real issue in the suit...that they Daily Mail did not have Meghan's permission to print the letter.

Its also worth noting that the Judge said some of the claims can be revived later.
__________________
.

  #1075  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:42 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I find it really charming what Mail Online calls it a "victory" that the Judge struck out parts of Meghan's application because "public policy and the interest of the parties require that the trial should be kept strictly to the issues necessary for the fair determination of the dispute between the parties”. (quote from today's judgment).
So what was struck out were not parts that were wrongly introduced by Meghan's solicitors, but points that make no sense to investigate, as they were not important as legal points in relation to the cost of the investigation.
Meaning: even without a judgment on these points, the Court can find a judgment on the main points of Meghan's application. And these are all still in - breach of copyright etc.



Plus, the last sentece of the judgment is this:
Some aspects of the case that I have struck out at this stage may be revived if they are put in proper form.

Why talk about a "victory" if the whole case is still open?
I don't read the Mail, so don't know what they claimed but I did read the full ruling: clearly this is a victory for them. At this point in the case, they did not deal with the privacy issues; they asked for certain aspects of the case to be removed (struck out) from the case and were granted ALL that they asked and more.

The judge was clear that the claimant (Meghan's team) did a poor job in arguing these specific claims by using generalizations and some examples and even requiring the 'defendant' to do what should be their job (i.e., come up with the evidence for the claims made by Meghan). The judge also detailed which arguments may be used in the future (a few, mainly related to the newspaper's dealings with her father - that's what the latest sentence referred to) and which not (most other claims).

So, based on this ruling the case no longer includes any claims on;
- 'acting dishonestly and in bad faith' (even phrases that weren't included in this request were struck out after Meghan's lawyer claimed they were supposed to have the same intent - and is not allowed 'back in');
- 'stirring up conflict' between Meghan and her father (if Meghan wants to include anything about how the newspaper 'used' her father that is permissible but she needs to come up with more specific evidence which the current general accusations lack);
- an 'agenda' by the newspaper (not admissible as part of this case; if she would want to pursue this further she would need to start a separate case and (recurring theme) come up with the evidence instead of general accusations and some insufficiently argued examples)

I'd say, based on Meghan's previous statements, the first and last for her are at the heart of this whole case, so while they must have known that there would be a risk that this part wouldn't stand (the privacy part has stronger legal grounds and will be argued in court), I am sure they are disappointed. If they thought this ruling likely, as ACO suggests, I agree with the judge that the court room (and all its resources) are not meant for (in my own words) airing personal grievances and making a point - but should be used proportionally.
  #1076  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:46 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Exactly!

Honestly, I thought the points that were thrown out (with the exception of the paper had an "agenda" to portray her in damaging light” were all fluff and had nothing to do with the real issue in the suit...that they Daily Mail did not have Meghan's permission to print the letter.

Its also worth noting that the Judge said some of the claims can be revived later.
But why include them if they had nothing to do with the real issue?

In this pre-trial hearing, the judge did not evaluate any other claims than those that have been 'struck out', as only these claims were challenged at this point. It is noteworthy that Meghan lost on all accounts this time as all claims (and more!) were granted to the defendant. Of course, she might still win the privacy case but if so, the damages awarded will probably be much lower (as her lawyer made clear some of these arguments were to increase damages).

And the judge was very specific about what can be revived and what cannot be revived. The issues that can be revived were rather limited and would need better/more evidence for them to be admissible to the case.
  #1077  
Old 05-01-2020, 12:55 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 411
It's a victory because Meghan's legal team tried to take a fair legal dispute (over a copyright issue) and use it as a platform to prove a media campaign against her. The judge has rightly said, "If you have a legal issue to pursue in this case, pursue it, but leave your other vendettas to the side."

Meghan's team far overreached in trying to use (what seems to be) a legitimate breach of the copyright law to "prove to the world" that Meghan is the victim of some campaign. They've been firmly and resoundingly set in their place for doing so.

Let us not pretend that had this ruling been favorable to the Sussexes, it would not be treated as a victory for them. This was going to be a victory for whichever side it was decided in favor of.

Whether the issues can be re-written and re-submitted for consideration is a matter of law, not up to the discretion of the judge.
  #1078  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:02 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 8,733
It is not unusual for a case to be brought that has additional elements to it as ancillary to the main part of the case.

As separate issues on their own, there may not have been much or enough evidence on their own merit or warrant a full blown stand-alone-case separate for the main complaint/grievance.
__________________
JACK
  #1079  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:16 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 1,939
I think they should have agreed to settle this out of court, and I hope that they will have to pay the costs of about £50,000.00
  #1080  
Old 05-01-2020, 01:23 PM
ACO ACO is online now
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,378
Mostly I think Meghan's team wanted some things on record. In order to defend themselves the Mail on Sunday also admitted a few things, including editing the letter and misrepresenting content in their publication. It has nothing to do with this case but could come in handy down the line if she did pursue a defamation cause.

At the end of it all this was just her side tossing in a lot knowing things could be struck out. It isn't uncommon. We will likely see more of this once the trial happens on both sides of the case. The Mail on Sunday got a victory here. Let's see what the actual trial brings.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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
abdication american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names baptism biography bridal gown british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace carolin countess of snowdon cpr dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii facts games gradenigo history hochberg hypothetical monarchs imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king willem-alexander list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels northern ireland plantinum jubilee pless prince constantijn prince dimitri prince harry princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess ribha queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima random facts resusci anne royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon thai royal family uae customs united states of america wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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