Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[carlota]

strange that roya nikkhah (who is/was an 'approved sussex reporter') wrote a negative article about them. but more strange is that harry is suing them over her article rather than achieve an amicable resolution (the times apologising for false reporting), given that she is one of the only supporting journalists out there for them.

[Humbugged]

Originally Posted by carlota

strange that roya nikkhah (who is/was an 'approved sussex reporter') wrote a negative article about them. but more strange is that harry is suing them over her article rather than achieve an amicable resolution (the times apologising for false reporting), given that she is one of the only supporting journalists out there for them.

The company she did her William documentary for are the same people who were supposed to be filming this concert .She smelled the money



They complained to IPSO as they were supposed to



-----------------------


And no they don't have to put up with people flying drones over their house (either is the Cotwolds or in LA) as it is illegal .As were the pictures on Victoria Island

[ashleywessex]

I really don't see what is negative about Roya's article. It's still up.

Officials at the foundation, of which Harry is patron, were “stunned” after a lawyer for the Sussexes contacted them shortly before the Netflix deal was announced last week, pulling the plug on the project, citing a “conflict” over a planned deal with a rival streaming service.

(source: http://archive.today/9QdhM)

The lawyer cited the conflict, Royal reported this. The Duke of Sussex can file a complaint, as anyone can. He apparently takes umbrage with the idea of it being a conflict with Netflix. "It's just Covid," ok, but that's not what the lawyer said. I think this whole thing exposes a disagreement between lawyer and client more than an unethical practice by the newspaper.

"Officials at the foundation" cited the conflict. I know it's better when people go on the record, but in this litigious environment that we all live and work in, that is not a realistic expectation. Everyone is afraid to speak out on the record these days. People lose jobs, companies go belly up, because of on the record comments in the press. It's terrifying. That doesn't mean there aren't still instances of wanting to get a story out, say something that needs to be said. But most people aren't "financially independent," and really need to keep their jobs, to take care of themselves and their families.

[evolvingdoors]

Meghan fires lawyer who represented Johnny Depp (my add: and, reminder, Diana)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...depp-k0cf9ch55

A link for those who can't access The Times article:
https://archive.ph/hkgnM
(mods please delete if forbidden)


Can't say i'm surprised, but not for the reasons her fans will think.
They have strongly hinted a couple of times that several of the moves they made was directed to them by their client. I think they probably said a hard NO to a move she wanted to make, (probably also the hearing loss was part of the reason) and she decided to drop him.

Again I am not surprised she has done this.


(From TheTimes article)

Justin Rushbrooke, QC, has confirmed to The Times that he will represent the former television actress in future hearings.
The QC is said to have impressed her when standing in for Mr Sherborne

So he is being replaced by Justin Rushbrooke.
Interestingly though: "Justin Rushbrooke accidentally said the surname of one of the five friends"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inst-Mail.html


Also from the times:

He will appear in court today for the duchess

there is a an hearing today?

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Meghan fires lawyer who represented Johnny Depp (my add: and, reminder, Diana)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...depp-k0cf9ch55

A link for those who can't access The Times article:
https://archive.ph/hkgnM
(mods please delete if forbidden)


Can't say i'm surprised, but not for the reasons her fans will think.
They have strongly hinted a couple of times that several of the moves they made was directed to them by their client. I think they probably said a hard NO to a move she wanted to make, (probably also the hearing loss was part of the reason) and she decided to drop him.

Again I am not surprised she has done this.


(From TheTimes article)



So he is being replaced by Justin Rushbrooke.
Interestingly though: "Justin Rushbrooke accidentally said the surname of one of the five friends"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inst-Mail.html


Also from the times:

there is a an hearing today?

Thank you very much for the Times and Daily Mail article. The Evening Standard and NewsChain have confirm that a Court Hearing against the Associated Newspapers is today (Monday 21st September). I find these two articles after browsing through Google News

NewsChain: https://www.newschain.uk/news/latest...gh-court-33970

Evening Standard: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...-a4551906.html

Here is a beginning extract from the Evening Standard:

The next stage in Meghan's legal action against the Mail's publisher over its publication of a “private and confidential” letter to her estranged father is due to be heard at the High Court.

The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers (ANL), publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, over an article which reproduced parts of the handwritten letter sent to Thomas Markle, 76, in August 2018.

Sections of the letter were published in the newspaper and online in February last year, and it was announced the duchess would be bringing legal action in October.

A costs and case management hearing is due to take place before Master Francesca Kaye on Monday.

Going back to the Times article, again, I am not surprise that Justin Rushbrooke, QC is now representing Meghan rather than David Sherborne. It is interesting that at one point, the authors mentioned 'It is understood there is no love lost between Mr Sherborne and Mr Rushbrooke, who both work out of the chambers 5RB. A source described them as “chalk and cheese”.'

[Madame Verseau]

Daily Mail wants to argue Meghan cooperated writing oh Finding Freedom; therefore it's reasonable to believe she told her friends to go to People about the letter. Sounds like DM is having trouble proving Meghan told her friends to go to People. And they are trying to drag Omid Scobie in because of his statement Meghan gave her friends permission. But he had know proof. Trial starts January 11, 2021.

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Daily Mail wants to argue Meghan cooperated writing oh Finding Freedom; therefore it's reasonable to believe she told her friends to go to People about the letter. Sounds like DM is having trouble proving Meghan told her friends to go to People. And they are trying to drag Omid Scobie in because of his statement Meghan gave her friends permission. But he had know proof. Trial starts January 11, 2021.

Quite the contrary.
First of all Omid dragged himself in when he made that statement on how the letter was written with the intention of his being seen (by the public).

He also dragged himself in with the book, and the ultra! private information that could only come from Meghan and Harry, including information about the letter.

IMO the only leg she still has in this case is the Copyright, everything else will be blown out of the water by the MoS defense.

From what I understand the court also agreed to give the defense access to Meghan's emails and texts (i'm guessing related to the people related to the case: Her dad, 5 friends, Omid perhaps too..)

[angieuk]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cy-battle.html

[AC21091968]

Originally Posted by angieuk

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cy-battle.html

Thank you angiuk for the Daily Mail link.

Chris Ship (ITV News Royal Editor) has summarised the hearings (mainly between Meghan's and Mail on Sunday's lawyers) in a series of linked tweet.

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...76673850261504

For those who do not want to click on to the Daily Mail article, its content is similar to Chris Ship's summary.

There is a lot of mud been thrown with a staggering amount of fees. Chris Ship tweeted out (in the same chain):

"Meghan’s legal team estimates she will have legal costs of £1.8million - and the Mail on Sunday £1.23 million.
That’s an estimated £3million in total for the 7-10 day trial next year in the High Court [Flushed face]"

Jessica Mulroney's instagram account has gone private (not surprisingly, given her name was in the court hearing, based on Chris Ship's twitter summary)
https://www.instagram.com/jessicamulroney/

[Madame Verseau]

First of all Omid dragged himself in when he made that statement on how the letter was written with the intention of his being seen (by the public).

Yes Omid made the statement but Meghan's lawyer can argue Scobie was forming an opinion. MoS still needs empirical proof, e.g. an email from her stating I wanted the public to see or know about the letter and I told my friends to go to People. Or the friends, Scobie and Durand would half to confess under oath. If these friends and the authors are compelled for balance Meghan's father needs to as well. Meghan wants to keep her dad out of it but she may not have no choice. To do his job her lawyer would have to come after him. And the letter would have to be un-redacted at trial to understand the privacy claim. If Dad looks bad...well.

[Queen Claude]

Meghan Markle’s lawyers slam Finding Freedom as ‘inaccurate’ after duchess is accused of ‘cooperating’ with authors

• Abe Hawken

• 22 Sep 2020, 12:56
• Updated: 22 Sep 2020, 13:01

[...]

It is the first time her team has said anything about the book, describing it as just a “product of creative licence”.

Her solicitor and Schillings partner Jenny Afia questioned some of the claims in a witness statement lodged with the High Court as part of Meghan's privacy case against the Mail on Sunday.

[...]

Referring to the claims in the book, Ms Afia said: “The vast majority of these are either extremely anodyne and/or I understand are the product of creative licence and/or are inaccurate.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...om-inaccurate/





Another article:
Now Meghan blasts book that fawned on her and Harry: Biography is inaccurate and anodyne, the duchess’s OWN lawyer tells court

• Jenny Afia said that the Finding Freedom authors had relied on creative licence
• Book says Harry and Meghan stayed at Meno A Kwena safari camp on edge of Makgadikgadi Pans
• Afia said Meghan ‘has never visited nor been on safari to the Makgadikgadi Pans’

By Sam Greenhill Chief Reporter For The Daily Mail
Published: 17:04 EDT, 22 September 2020 | Updated: 19:37 EDT, 22 September 2020

[...]


Lawyers for the Mail on Sunday told the court Meghan ‘does not object to details... being publicly disclosed, provided that such disclosure is couched in terms that are favourable and flattering’.


They told the court on Monday there were details in the book that could only have come from Harry and Meghan themselves. In response, Miss Afia’s witness statement set out examples of mistakes in the book which she said showed there was no collusion between the royals and the authors.


She said many supposed insights had been simply copied from public sources such as newspapers, social media and TV.

[...]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lls-court.html

[AC21091968]

Camilla Tominey (Royal and political editor of The Telegraph) has commented on twitter with an attached article

Camilla Tominey @CamillaTominey
This story serves as a salient reminder of that old @GylesB1 adage: when it comes to working with #Royals, journalists should never confuse friendliness for friendship...

Duchess of Sussex's lawyers issue scathing dismissal of Finding Freedom claims

7:00 PM · Sep 23, 2020 · Twitter Web App

https://twitter.com/CamillaTominey/s...92646119043073

The Telegraph article was written by Hannah Furness, royal correspondent on 22nd September (behind paywall): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...nding-freedom/

[Madame Verseau]

What I find odd is the judge ordering that six months of Meghan's emails, texts etc AFTER the publication of the People article is to be used for DM's defense. Wouldn't communication before the article be useful ? Also , DM is restricted to communication germaine to the case.

[camelot23ca]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

Meghan Markle’s lawyers slam Finding Freedom as ‘inaccurate’ after duchess is accused of ‘cooperating’ with authors

• Abe Hawken

• 22 Sep 2020, 12:56
• Updated: 22 Sep 2020, 13:01

[...]

It is the first time her team has said anything about the book, describing it as just a “product of creative licence”.

Her solicitor and Schillings partner Jenny Afia questioned some of the claims in a witness statement lodged with the High Court as part of Meghan's privacy case against the Mail on Sunday.

[...]

Referring to the claims in the book, Ms Afia said: “The vast majority of these are either extremely anodyne and/or I understand are the product of creative licence and/or are inaccurate.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...om-inaccurate/





Another article:
Now Meghan blasts book that fawned on her and Harry: Biography is inaccurate and anodyne, the duchess’s OWN lawyer tells court

• Jenny Afia said that the Finding Freedom authors had relied on creative licence
• Book says Harry and Meghan stayed at Meno A Kwena safari camp on edge of Makgadikgadi Pans
• Afia said Meghan ‘has never visited nor been on safari to the Makgadikgadi Pans’

By Sam Greenhill Chief Reporter For The Daily Mail
Published: 17:04 EDT, 22 September 2020 | Updated: 19:37 EDT, 22 September 2020

[...]


Lawyers for the Mail on Sunday told the court Meghan ‘does not object to details... being publicly disclosed, provided that such disclosure is couched in terms that are favourable and flattering’.


They told the court on Monday there were details in the book that could only have come from Harry and Meghan themselves. In response, Miss Afia’s witness statement set out examples of mistakes in the book which she said showed there was no collusion between the royals and the authors.


She said many supposed insights had been simply copied from public sources such as newspapers, social media and TV.

[...]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lls-court.html

I guess the obvious question in the face of all these inaccuracies and instances of creative license is why The Sussexes didn’t object to any part of Finding Freedom until it became a potentially damaging part of the impending trial?

The book has been out for months now and Harry and Meghan would have known about it long before its publication. For a couple not afraid to use lawsuits, complaints, interviews, friendly reporters, friends and social media to manage their public image it seems strange that they were content to let all the inaccuracies in the book stand and it does beg the question of what made Finding Freedom unobjectionable to them?

[Curryong]

They didn't sue Lady Colin Campbell either, though her imaginative biography was extremely unfavourable towards them, and inaccurate, as well as using insulting phrases about the couple at times. Nor did they sue the authors of Royals at War, another book that was critical of them and inaccurate in some areas. So why would they sue authors who were relatively sympathetic?

[Sun Lion]

The Duchess of Sussex is being reported as going to appear in her court case.

Camilla Tominey - "the announcement this week that Meghn intends to take the stand in her court case against Associated Newspapers in January" etc.

I'm going to be watching that unfold!


(Thanks AC21091968 for the article, posted in the "News & Events" thread.)

[Duchess_Watcher]

Originally Posted by Madame Verseau

Daily Mail wants to argue Meghan cooperated writing oh Finding Freedom; therefore it's reasonable to believe she told her friends to go to People about the letter. Sounds like DM is having trouble proving Meghan told her friends to go to People. And they are trying to drag Omid Scobie in because of his statement Meghan gave her friends permission. But he had know proof. Trial starts January 11, 2021.

There may not be PROOF but it's obvious she told someone and that person revealed all. She basically did it in a 3rd party way. The information is too private for anyone to know. They had to have their story heard.

[evolvingdoors]

Did anyone knew about this? (it's news to me)


https://inforrm.org/2020/08/01/news-...al/#more-46538

The Judge in Charge of the Media and Communications List, Mr Justice Warby, is one of eight new appointments to the Court of Appeal which were announced on 31 July 2020. He will take up his appointment later in the year.

So will he not be presiding over the case anymore, seeing as the court date is Jan 2021?

[Lord_Royal]

Originally Posted by Humbugged

Well that agency was taking photos in BC where it is illegal to take pap pics .And guess what they now live in California and their are rules their about taking pap pics as well

It is not illegal to take paparazzi pictures in any Canadian province. The standard of privacy is whether someone would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and activities in a public setting, like a park, are not subject to protection from privacy.

[Lord_Royal]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Meghan fires lawyer who represented Johnny Depp (my add: and, reminder, Diana)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...depp-k0cf9ch55

A link for those who can't access The Times article:
https://archive.ph/hkgnM
(mods please delete if forbidden)


Can't say i'm surprised, but not for the reasons her fans will think.
They have strongly hinted a couple of times that several of the moves they made was directed to them by their client. I think they probably said a hard NO to a move she wanted to make, (probably also the hearing loss was part of the reason) and she decided to drop him.

Again I am not surprised she has done this.


(From TheTimes article)



So he is being replaced by Justin Rushbrooke.
Interestingly though: "Justin Rushbrooke accidentally said the surname of one of the five friends"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...inst-Mail.html


Also from the times:

there is a an hearing today?

When clients start firing their lawyers it is a clear signal of a loss of confidence between the lawyer and the client. It is almost always a sign of weakness because it's a clear sign that something has gone awry in the lawyer/client relationship.

The usual reason is that (as I suspect in this circumstance) the lawyer has said "No" to their client and the client has balked.

There is an old adage in the legal field: 'Don't be the second lawyer on a file.'