Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by 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

H&M have apparently tried to drop the case but the Mail would not let them. They have too much money to be made from this regardless of outcome.

IMO the judge did not have any other option that the decision he made. He was polite in mentioning that there might be legal merit in some of it, but H&M would never sue on those issues.

[ACO]

It reads that that the paper is the one who tried to have it dropped but Meghan refused. This is why MoS is asking for her side to pick up their bill.

[Ista]

It's inevitable that the judge's ruling would be perceived as a victory for the MoS, but it has absolutely no implications for the long term outcome of the case. It's not uncommon for individual rulings to favor one side or the other, but it's not predictive. So round 1 to the defendants, and on to the next stage.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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.

IMHO she hoped that other parts of the media besides the tabloids would report on it and make it clear how she sees it, for at least her solicitor must have known how difficult it is to prove "dishonesty" of a company or that they were behind the problems with her father without having a witness or written proof. But she stated it for the public to notice - the Mail has lied and they tried to stir up trouble with her father, so he left her alone on the altar (POW not counting here!).


And he did not judge on these claims, he just "struck them out" because it would be too time intense and costly to investigate, especially seeing that Meghan's party did not include any proof. He did not act on the newspapers' claim that as she is a member of the Royal family it was the publics right to get to know the private info on Meghan! But the judge said a lot of things that pointed to his views that Meghan was right with the claims he left in the case, so I guess she will be awared damages for that and maybe that'll teach the tabloids a thing or two. For they must know now that Megfhan's lawyers are just waiting to build up a new case against them, especially now she is a private citizen once more.



But seeing what the Mail's owner claimed about her having no right to privacy as she is a member of the Royal family and got public money for doing her duties, for me it makes sense that Harry and she decided to get rid of that public money, even if it meant to leave the position of working Royals.

IMHO this whole case shopws why Harry and Meghan left - and it's a sad thing to see them go when they so care about the people, but have felt the need to protectz their son and their privacy.

Originally Posted by Eskimo

H&M have apparently tried to drop the case but the Mail would not let them. They have too much money to be made from this regardless of outcome.

IMO the judge did not have any other option that the decision he made. He was polite in mentioning that there might be legal merit in some of it, but H&M would never sue on those issues. When you are living on taxpayer money you cannot claim constant victim-hood in a court of law.

Of course you can if you are victimzed against the law of the land! The law is for the protection of all citizens, including the Royals (or public Servants - they live of public money, while H&M don't.)

[Heavs]

I suspect the parts about trying to prove an agenda (and I 100% agree that the DM and MoS had a nasty one) either via the actual court case or those parts getting played out in the press were the main reasons for the suit in the first place, therefore it is something of a blow even if it's not a huge victory for the MOS as they claim.

The copyrighted letter was the chosen vehicle because that had the most chance of winning or at least not being thrown out all together. It fits with the timing of the filing of the lawsuit filing and the remarks they made about the press at the time.

We'll see how it progresses from here.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

IMHO she hoped that other parts of the media besides the tabloids would report on it and make it clear how she sees it, for at least her solicitor must have known how difficult it is to prove "dishonesty" of a company or that they were behind the problems with her father without having a witness or written proof. But she stated it for the public to notice - the Mail has lied and they tried to stir up trouble with her father, so he left her alone on the altar (POW not counting here!).

Lawyers and legal firms of international repute do not include allegations in a lawsuit for the purpose of having things reported on by the media or to let the world know how their client sees an issue. What you described above would make a firm or attorney guilty of serious misconduct.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by 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.

Where in the judgment do you read that they admit to 'misrepresenting content'? I may have missed it when reading the rather long ruling.

They indeed 'admitted' to not publishing the full letter; as according to them, they never claimed. They claimed to have the full letter in possession and claim that their articles are a fair representation of said letter.

[Eskimo]

Originally Posted by ACO

It reads that that the paper is the one who tried to have it dropped but Meghan refused. This is why MoS is asking for her side to pick up their bill.

The losing side pretty much always picks up the tab for the winning side (esp. if the defendant wins). This was months ago.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Ista

It's inevitable that the judge's ruling would be perceived as a victory for the MoS, but it has absolutely no implications for the long term outcome of the case. It's not uncommon for individual rulings to favor one side or the other, but it's not predictive. So round 1 to the defendants, and on to the next stage.

Well said!

[lirienn]

It'll be interesting about spills to People magazine.
Overall, PR-wise it's a disaster. [...] first round proved that they are not invincible.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Heavs

I suspect the parts about trying to prove an agenda (and I 100% agree that the DM and MoS had a nasty one) either via the actual court case or those parts getting played out in the press were the main reasons for the suit in the first place, therefore it is something of a blow even if it's not a huge victory for the MOS as they claim.

The copyrighted letter was the chosen vehicle because that had the most chance of winning or at least not being thrown out all together. It fits with the timing of the filing of the lawsuit filing and the remarks they made about the press at the time.

I tend to agree with both points. I hope they win the copyright case all the same. From my limited understanding of the law they seem to have a clear case.

[poppy7]

She lost this aspect.

It was not going to fly in law anyway. They did it because they hate me and want to ruin my life. That wasnt going to be legally admissible. We will see what happens.

But to all those saying about settling. The Sussexea wanted to settle out of court and the Newspaper refused.

[camelot23ca]

I finally broke down and read the background leading up to the trial today. I’d avoided reading too much about it before because it’s always seemed clear to me that Meghan had the right to expect that the letter to her father would remain private and therefore I had no interest in reading it or the details that came out because of its publication.

I still haven’t read the letter but I’ve caught up on the info that was made public as part of the lead up to the trial, and today I broke down and read the DM for a synopsis of how things got to this point.

So first of all - what a mess! I hope this doesn’t end up going to trial. No one will come out looking well.

Second, I was struck by a comment from Meghan’s lawyer saying before the pre-wedding squabbling and publication of the letter, Meghan and her father had a “particularly warm” relationship. How did they go from that to no contact for two years? This isn’t something that should cause complete and permanent estrangement between two close family members who have always had a strong bond. Especially a parent and a child. Lots of fighting and venting and tears, yes. But no contact and not meeting a grandchild? Both sides now willing to testify against each other in a lawsuit?

If the lawyer isn’t exaggerating and Meghan and Thomas were close right up to the wedding I think both father and daughter are going to have huge regrets if they continue on this path.

[Sun Lion]

Please beware - the link below is to the Daily Mail, if you wish to avoid that outlet.

But, also be aware that the article is quoting named lawyers speaking out about the case.

The quotes make me think this is going to be so damaging.

(And I can see the new book becoming a vehicle for the Duke and Duchess to try to get what they may fail to get with this legal action.)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...il-Sunday.html

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by lirienn

It'll be interesting about spills to People magazine.
Overall, PR-wise it's a disaster. [...] first round proved that they are not invincible.

People magazine started in the 70's as a magazine that wouldn't print trash about celebrities. It was meant to contrast publications like the National Enquirer.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

H&M have apparently tried to drop the case but the Mail would not let them. They have too much money to be made from this regardless of outcome.

IMO the judge did not have any other option that the decision he made. He was polite in mentioning that there might be legal merit in some of it, but H&M would never sue on those issues.

I find it interesting the Judge said those items struck off could still be actionable to should they be laid in the correct manner.

[Curryong]

The Daily Mail stated yesterday that the lawyers for the newspaper group asked for a meeting before the hearing, justifying it by saying that they didn't want to waste the court's time during the Coronavirus, but the Sussex lawyers refused, so it appears that it isn't just the Sussexes that wanted to come to an agreement before the trial.

And the main part of the case hasn't been dismissed. This isn't the end.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by MARG

I find it interesting the Judge said those items struck off could still be actionable to should they be laid in the correct manner.

The judge also said that some items cannot be introduced again.

As this idea of 'it can be brought up again', has come up several times, I figured it might be helpful to specifically state what is out indefinitely and what might be revived in another way (but not as part of the particulars). I've tried to include the relevant passages and have included the 'article numbers' for easy reference for those wanting to read all of it in its context.

Dishonesty & Malice in general (PoC 9(8) & (12))

(46) The allegations of dishonesty are irrelevant to the case (…) and that their incorporation (…) is likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings, by calling for an investigation which can have no bearing on the decision as to liability.
(48) I also accept (..) that the allegations of dishonesty and malice are inadequately pleaded.
(50) Mr Sherborne submits that (…) the remedy is a request or order for further particulars of the claim. I do not consider that the burden of identifying what can and should be pleaded by the claimant ought to be cast on the defendant or the court.
(51) The overriding objective if deciding cases justly and at proportionate cist requires the Court to monitor and control the cale of the resources it devotes to each individual claim. Irrelevant matter should, as a rule, have o place in Particulars of Claim. (…) But where the irrelevant pleading makes serious allegations of wrongdoing which are partly implicit, unclear, lacking in the essential particulars, and likely to cause a significant increase in cost and complexity the cost for striking out is all the clearer.
(52) To Mr Sherborne's submission that the same matters are, or might properly be, relied on in aggravation of dagames, there are four main answers: first, if that is the way in which they are to be relied on, it is in that context that they should be pleaded; secondly, if that is a legitimate way of putting the case, it needs separate justification; thirdly, the case is not adequately pleaded for that purpose; and even then, the Court needs to keep a watchful eye on the proportionality of litigating matters which go solely to damages.

So, the judge is clear that this part is out...

Dishonesty in representing letter (19.4)

(55) I shall strike out the passage objected to, on the footing that this follows the logic of Mr White's argument on inadequacy of pleading, which I have accepted, I do so, however, without prejudice to the claimant's right to seek permission to plead an adequate case by amendment of the Particulars of Claim.

So, the judge offers the opportunity to ask for permission to reintroduce the claim of 'dishonest representation of the letter' into the Particulars of Claim if they provide more substance to that claim.

Stirring up issues between claimant and her father (PoC 9(9))

(57) The first, and most obvious basis for striking out this part (…) is the one already given: it is an allegation of deliberate wrongdoing, and such allegations are irrelevant to the claim in misuse of private information (…). But the fact if it be so, that such matters might be relevant at that later stage would not justify pleading them in Particulars of Claim.
(58) Secondly, and additionally, this part of the PoC is liable to be struck out as impermissibly vague and lacking in particulars. (…) It is little more than a bare assertion. Response 16 does not amend the position but makes it worse. (…) it adds broad-brush assertions about unspecified journalistic "attempts and methods" and "previous coverage". Quite what, if anything, about these attempts, methods and coverage was allegedly unlawful, or otherwise wrongful is not specified. (…) The pleaded case as it stands is "embarrassing" in the old sense that is places the defendant in an impossible position, whereby it cannot tell what case it has to meet.
(59) The suggestion (…) that particulars cannot be provided or should not be expected until after disclosere is contrary to the long-standing principle that a party alleging misconduct must give particulars before obtaining disclosure. It is also bad on the facts. (…) The first is an allegation of improper conduct towards the claimant's father. Such allegations would not be made, if the claimant cannot give details of what was done and when. The second aspect relates to published articles, and it cannot be said that the claimant's lawyers need the defendant to tell them what material the claimant is complaining about.
(64) I do not need to decide those issues because I am persuaded that the Reply suffers from the same lack of particularity as paragraph 9(9) of the Particulars of Claim. The passages I have set out represent a general, broad-brush attach without any of the detail that would be necessary, applying the principles I have identified.
(66) It is on these grounds that I shall strike out those passages of the Reply, making clear that in doing so I am not precluding an application for permission to re-plead a case on the same or similar lines, which respectes the principles of due particularity and proportionality.

So, the judge specifies that the 'passages of the Reply' that deal with the dealings between the newspaper and Meghan's father might be included if they can offer sufficient detail. The claims about how the media in general is 'stirring up' their relationship are not permissible.

The agenda (PoC 19.8)

(67) I strike out this paragraph, and the supporting Response, for reasons that resemble those I have just given (…): I am not yet convinced that the central proposition relied on by the claimant is wholly immaterial to her case, or necessarily illegitimate; but I am convinced that it cannot be legitimate for the case to remain as it presently stands.
(69) A claimant cannot, as a matter of well-established principle, use a claim for aggravated damages as a means of obtaining damages for torts other than the one(s) sued upon; nor may a claimant plead and seek to prove a case about extraneous conduct of the claimant that tends to establish other causes of action, without permitting the defendant to plead and seek to establish a defense to such a cause of action.
(70) The claimant could not hope to use paragraph 19.8 as a vehicle to recover damages for libel or misuse of private information in these other articles, and I accept that this is not the intention behind this paragraph. But I do consider it to be highly unsatisfactory.
(72) First, that the pleading of the case is wholly inadequate. Much more detail would be required to enable the pleaded claims to be fully understand and dealt with. Secondly, and crucially, that the costs and time that would be required to investigate and resolve the factual issues raised by the case as currently pleaded bear no reasonable relationship of proportionality with the legitimate aim of recovering some additional compensation for emotional harm. Those conclusions are enough to justify my decision to strike out the passages objected to.
(74) The difficulties with this aspect of the case cannot be solved, however, by giving more details of the 9 articles, let alone more details of additional articles. That would tend instead to exacerbate the problems. The claimant is of coure entitled to give evidence that the publication complained of caused her distress, and the principle reasons for that feeling need to be identified so that the defendant can challenge her case in that respect (…) But any such case must, on each side, be pleaded clearly and concisely, and conducted proportionately. The case as presently pleaded is a long way from that.
(77) There also remain issues of principle. It is clear, in my judgment, that aggravated damages cannot be recovered for distress caused by conduct which is separate and distinct from that which is alleged to constitute the tort. There must be a genuine and close relationship between the tort and the matters relied on as aggravation.
(78) Here, the claimant relies on 9 articles that are not sued upon, to support a claim for aggravated damages for distress caused by the 5 publications sued upon. The 9 articles lack any genuine or close connection with the torts complained of.
(79) My provisional albeit somewhat tentative view is that the only necessary, and the only legitimate, averments at the stage of PoC are that the claimant was distressed by the publications that are complained of as tortious because she (reasonably) considered them to be intrusive and offensive, fase and/or misleading. But in view of the points I have already made, a decision on these issues can be reserved to a later occasion, if it becomes necessary.

So, the judge does not allow the 'agenda' argument to be part of the case but Meghan may argue 'distress' caused by the 5 articles that she sued upon 'if that becomes necessary' - and it will be evaluated at that point in the process.

[Eskimo]

Let's not pretend that H&M not being represented by lawyers generally associated with the RF but by a "celebrity" lawyer does not speak volumes

[Tsarinya]

Originally Posted by Eskimo

Let's not pretend that H&M not being represented by lawyers generally associated with the RF but by a "celebrity" lawyer does not speak volumes

If I recall correctly they didn’t want the help of the Royal lawyers. I wonder why? Surely those would be the best ones to use?