Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

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

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

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

[Jacknch]

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.

[Jacknch]

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.

[Lumutqueen]

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.

[Alisa]

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.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Alisa

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

[ACO]

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

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

[Kataryn]

A media report about the judgment by the Guardian:


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...n-sunday-owner

[victor1319]

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...

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by victor1319

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.

[Kataryn]

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?

[Zonk]

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.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

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.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Zonk

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.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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.

[Jacknch]

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.

[Betsypaige]

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

[ACO]

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.