Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[MARG]

The only actual money mentioned was the two and a half thousand dollars toward legal fees. The "substantial" amount awarded to him has not been mentioned. Funny how all the bad headlines are about Harry and not the paper since the paper lost and had to pay up.

 

[LadyRaven]

The only actual money mentioned was the two and a half thousand dollars toward legal fees. The "substantial" amount awarded to him has not been mentioned. Funny how all the bad headlines are about Harry and not the paper since the paper lost and had to pay up.

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

 

[Curryong]

Well, had the proprietors of the Fail and The Fail on Sunday successfully defended their actions in court then no doubt they would have been trumpeting the amount they would have been forcing Harry to pay in costs and celebrating their 'victory' in their newspapers for days.

So whatever Harry won in compensation and whatever the sum, it's sure to be in the thousands of pounds, it's a win. And a win against tabloids that persist in publishing baseless lies about his wife and himself week after week, month in and month out for years now.

 

[LadyRaven]

Well, had the proprietors of the Fail and The Fail on Sunday successfully defended their actions in court then no doubt they would have been trumpeting the amount they would have been forcing Harry to pay in costs and celebrating their 'victory' in their newspapers for days.

So whatever Harry won in compensation and whatever the sum, it's sure to be in the thousands of pounds, it's a win. And a win against tabloids that persist in publishing baseless lies about his wife and himself week after week, month in and month out for years now.

Needs to be careful though. Fergie had won some court cases against the press but overall they still won the PR war.

 

[AC21091968]

And it would also depends on how loyal (or how far) would Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday readers take. In other words, would they read more articles or purchase more papers just to support the Mail? Or would readers of other Murdoch newspaper/media (The Telegraph, The Times, The Express, The Sun) start doing the same thing? I'm pointing this out because readers of the Murdoch publication are generally very loyal and defend them from critics (e.g. Kevin Rudd) as freedom of press and freedom of speech.

The Times, The Telegraph and The Spectator (not Murdoch owned) are subscription based and these three have been doing relatively well in 2020. The same could be said for The Mail (Daily and Sunday), even though it's not based on subscription (except for Mail+). As much as the critics and detractors wants to de-platform them, ultimately it's up to the members of the public to decide if they (individually) want to read them and financially contribute to these publication.

Don't get me wrong, I disliked the tabloids (The Mail, The Sun, The Mirror, The Express, Morning Star...), but I think suing them would do the opposite and work in their favour due to reverse psychology

 

[Curryong]

From what I've read, both online newspapers and those in print (subscription and otherwise) have done exceptionally well throughout the last twelve months because of Covid and more people at home with increased leisure.

That may well not continue on in the future, especially as print newspapers and magazines generally have been dying, circulation-wise, for the last couple of decades or more.

And I can't imagine tabloid readers paying to buy more newspapers, whether Murdoch papers or not, simply because the newspaper group that owns them lost a court case against the Sussexes. People might well read more online papers during a 'scandal' and help with the Clickbait by their comments but that would be it, IMO.

There was also a survey done by YouGov some years ago in which readers attitudes to newspapers was examined. It tuned out that just 11% of tabloid readers in Britain believed the stories these papers put out. They're regarded as a form of entertainment within Britain, nothing more.

 

[Alison H]

In my experience, most people stick to the same newspaper/newspapers. A lot of people do still have print copies delivered, and other people have subscriptions to online versions. I don't think people start or stop reading a newspaper over one story any more than they'd start shopping at a different supermarket because they didn't like one of its own brand products.

We get 24 hour news coverage these days. By the time my morning papers arrive (like a lot of people, I read a national newspaper of choice and the local newspaper for my area), I've long since heard any news they might contain. Sky News even does a late evening "press preview", where they tell you what the headlines of all the main newspapers the following day say. I read the newspapers for entertainment, as you say, not to learn anything I don't know already.

 

[RandyDrx]

Well, had the proprietors of the Fail and The Fail on Sunday successfully defended their actions in court then no doubt they would have been trumpeting the amount they would have been forcing Harry to pay in costs and celebrating their 'victory' in their newspapers for days.

So whatever Harry won in compensation and whatever the sum, it's sure to be in the thousands of pounds, it's a win. And a win against tabloids that persist in publishing baseless lies about his wife and himself week after week, month in and month out for years now.

I would consider it a pyrrhic victory, don't forget that he needs to pay the lawyer's fee which probably doesn't come cheap. Plus, he went against multiple tabloids that is owned by people who have money to burn, if this continues, he would need to downgrade from his big mansion to a more humble home.

 

[Hallo girl]

Could I ask the view of our posters on the amount awarded for legal costs, only £2500 against the claim for £35000. He won but it will still cost him, especially if the legal team are genuinely billing him for the original cost.

 

[amaryllus]

Yes. It’s definitely a Pyrrhic victory. In addition to lawyers fees he just does not have the funds to keep on taking on Tabloids and risking more losing or paltry “victories” given they will not absolutely not stop printing articles about the bread and butter A list couple. Not gonna happen.

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

 

[poppy7]

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.

Prince Harry rebuked for attacking Mail on Sunday after Marines ‘snub’ libel

The Duke of Sussex described his commitment to British servicemen and women as “steadfast and unquestionable” at a court hearing to settle his libel claim against the Mail on Sunday.The High Court heard today that the duke had insisted on the hearing, even after he had agreed the wording of an apolo

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[REAL COUNTESS]

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?

 

[Curryong]

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!

 

[VictoriaB]

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.

 

[Roslyn]

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.

 

[RandyDrx]

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."

 

[QueenMathilde]

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.

 

[yukari]

Or, quoting Newsweek article above:

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."

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

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.

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.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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

 

[AC21091968]

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/x/status/1359501277466615811

 

[Tarlita]

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.

 

[eya]

"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/hrh-the-duchess-of-sussex-v-associated-newspapers-ltd/

 

[ACO]

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"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."

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.

 

[poppy7]

I think she will drop it now. This could potentially be very embarassing.

 

[Madame Verseau]

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).

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

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.