Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by ACO

I don't see how it is embarrassing. Sounds like they are fairly confident in the case and want it sped up. I also just learned Prince Charles did the same with his copyright case to.

Optics. Basically the daily mail are right but they still broke copyright. To be honest it's highly embarrassing either way.

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Poppy, there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about what summary judgment means. (Or perhaps not; of course, you are quite entitled to your opinion either way.)

A summary judgment means that even if all of the Other Side's assertions are true, there is still a 100% chance My Side would win at trial. Naturally, to make this determination, a judge has to consider this request as if all of Other Side's assertions are true.

It's no more saying that they think DM's assertions are all true than it is saying they think every last one is utter bunk. I can't think of a situation where being granted summary judgment would be considered embarrassing. It's a judge's ruling that Other Side's defense was, quite literally, admitting the offense.

I am not familiar with the rules of ethics in the UK, but I would venture a guess it violates them not to file for summary judgment if you hold a belief that your client is entitled to it.

[Somebody]

HGHD, thanks for your explanation.

So, can a judge in the case of a summary judgment only rule in favor of Meghan; and if they would not rule in her favor, it couldn't be a summary judgment but would move to trial? Or could the judge also conclude that assuming everything the 'other side' is saying is true, he/she concludes that the defendant is right and therefore Meghan looses?

I am not familiar with the rules of ethics in the UK, but I would venture a guess it violates them not to file for summary judgment if you hold a belief that your client is entitled to it.

And why would they only now file for 'summary judgement' and not much earlier? Or is it only possible at this stage of the trial?

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Somebody, a ruling for summary judgment can go either way, to the complainant or the defendant, but the party must file for it. A judge could not look at Meghan's filing and say to himself, "Now I look at it, the DM deserves summary judgment!" but either side can- and often, both do- file for summary judgment.

As to why they are filing now and not earlier, I am not familiar with the civil procedure rules that govern UK courts and there may be a straightforward answer there (it may have to come at a particular point in the proceedings). My best guess would be that they are just now in possession of all the facts they need about DM's defense to give them what they think is their best shot.

[Eskimo]

It seems they’re asking for three different things

1. A Summary Judgement
2. Postponement of trial if Summary Judgment is not granted
3. They are appealing Justice Warby’s ruling to allow the MoS to include Finding Freedom in their case

IMO, it seems that Meghan has been made to understand that her friends and Socbie are not willing to perjure themselves and they’re trying to do damage control. It’s all about PR and optics. If their reputation gets tarnished by this, Netflix might back away.

[MARG]

No, it's all about law and legal advice. Your personal feelings of animus toward either party is irrelevant. We are living in a Covid world. Internationally that is our reality. Who would have thought that families in the UK or US would not have been able to socialise within even their families with grandparents not seeing their children or grandchildren for months.

People are stuck in places they don't want to be, borders are closed, lockdowns have severely damaged the 'High Street' and millions are out of work. The Justice department in every country is backlogged so why wouldn't the Courts themselves try and expedite the backlog. Harry and Meghan don't have to be there as video conferencing is now routine.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Poppy, there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about what summary judgment means. (Or perhaps not; of course, you are quite entitled to your opinion either way.)

A summary judgment means that even if all of the Other Side's assertions are true, there is still a 100% chance My Side would win at trial. Naturally, to make this determination, a judge has to consider this request as if all of Other Side's assertions are true.

It's no more saying that they think DM's assertions are all true than it is saying they think every last one is utter bunk. I can't think of a situation where being granted summary judgment would be considered embarrassing. It's a judge's ruling that Other Side's defense was, quite literally, admitting the offense.

I am not familiar with the rules of ethics in the UK, but I would venture a guess it violates them not to file for summary judgment if you hold a belief that your client is entitled to it.

Not really. It's more a clear cut civil case where going to trial is useless. One could say a lot of court cases should never make it to trial. You can't file until the other side has submitted their defence. Copywrite is a perfect case for this because they either have or they haven't but of course it isn't that simple here and the potential damage of a court case is immense. But if it's a summary judgement, the overall feeling left will be that she did ask her friends to talk to US and she did collaborate with Omit. But the trial too would be deeply damaging. It's a rock and a hard place. If the summary judgement goes in her favour, if she gets it, no one will care. That is what so meant by optics.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Poppy, there may be a bit of a misunderstanding about what summary judgment means. (Or perhaps not; of course, you are quite entitled to your opinion either way.)

A summary judgment means that even if all of the Other Side's assertions are true, there is still a 100% chance My Side would win at trial. Naturally, to make this determination, a judge has to consider this request as if all of Other Side's assertions are true.

It's no more saying that they think DM's assertions are all true than it is saying they think every last one is utter bunk. I can't think of a situation where being granted summary judgment would be considered embarrassing. It's a judge's ruling that Other Side's defense was, quite literally, admitting the offense.

I am not familiar with the rules of ethics in the UK, but I would venture a guess it violates them not to file for summary judgment if you hold a belief that your client is entitled to it.

So what is the point of summary judgment then? TO save a trial? If h and Meg are granted a summary judgement, what does it mean? that they win the case and are granted damages?

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Denville

So what is the point of summary judgment then? TO save a trial? If h and Meg are granted a summary judgement, what does it mean? that they win the case and are granted damages?

To save time and money and most importantly: No one talks. You get your costs covered. Maybe. Not damages and at Judges discretion. It's ideal for copywriters cases but can be refused.

[AC21091968]

From Chris Ship's twitter account. These tweets are linked. The Court Trial has moved from 11th January to around Autumn 2021. "The summary judgement decision will NOT be taken today"

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
NEW DEVELOPMENT: High Court judge allows Meghan’s request to delay the trial she is bringing against Mail on Sunday that WAS scheduled for 11 January. That date now been “vacated” and a new trial date is being arranged for the Autumn/Fall 2021. She is suing the MoS for privacy
10:50 PM · Oct 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Meghan is STILL going to apply for a Summary Judgement so that even the delayed trial is not required as she claims the Mail on Sunday has “no real prospect” of defending its actions in law. She is suing the newspaper for publishing the letter she wrote to her father Thomas
10:54 PM · Oct 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
The summary judgement decision will NOT be taken today. It will be heard at a later date as it was only filed by Meghan’s lawyers as recently as four working days ago.
10:56 PM · Oct 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...81562233491456

[ACO]

Meghan's trial delay has been granted. It will now take place in the fall.

https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/statu...82067479404544

"Breaking: The Duchess of Sussex's privacy trial against the Mail on Sunday has been delayed by 9 months, to autumn next year.

High Court judge agreed to the delay - not opposed by the Mail's publishers - after hearing confidential reasons from Meghan's lawyers why it was needed."

She also just applied for the Summary Judgement 4 days ago. It will be reviewed at a different hearing.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by AC21091968

From Chris Ship's twitter account. These tweets are linked. The Court Trial has moved from 11th January to around Autumn 2021. "The summary judgement decision will NOT be taken today"

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
NEW DEVELOPMENT: High Court judge allows Meghan’s request to delay the trial she is bringing against Mail on Sunday that WAS scheduled for 11 January. That date now been “vacated” and a new trial date is being arranged for the Autumn/Fall 2021. She is suing the MoS for privacy
10:50 PM · Oct 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
Meghan is STILL going to apply for a Summary Judgement so that even the delayed trial is not required as she claims the Mail on Sunday has “no real prospect” of defending its actions in law. She is suing the newspaper for publishing the letter she wrote to her father Thomas
10:54 PM · Oct 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Chris Ship @chrisshipitv
Replying to @chrisshipitv
The summary judgement decision will NOT be taken today. It will be heard at a later date as it was only filed by Meghan’s lawyers as recently as four working days ago.
10:56 PM · Oct 29, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...81562233491456

Any by doing so, IMO, Meghan has very wisely extended this whole drama out by another year.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MARG

No, it's all about law and legal advice. Your personal feelings of animus toward either party is irrelevant. We are living in a Covid world. Internationally that is our reality. Who would have thought that families in the UK or US would not have been able to socialise within even their families with grandparents not seeing their children or grandchildren for months.

People are stuck in places they don't want to be, borders are closed, lockdowns have severely damaged the 'High Street' and millions are out of work. The Justice department in every country is backlogged so why wouldn't the Courts themselves try and expedite the backlog. Harry and Meghan don't have to be there as video conferencing is now routine.

Covid-19 could conceivably have influenced the postponement, but it does not change the fact that a summary judgment can only be granted if the judge assesses that one side has no realistic possibility of prevailing on the legal merits.

[ACO]

There was a private meeting that presented reasons for the delay and why there is not officially been a new date set. I will just say I suspect it is due to Meghan not wanting to travel right now.

So currently delayed with the hope that it won't even come to a trial at all.

ETA:

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...00774251327489

"Meghan been given permission to apply for a “summary judgement”. Her legal team will make the case on 12/13 January 2021. Which was the date of the trial - before it got postponed today until October.
A reminder, if successful, a summary judgement would mean NO TRIAL at all."

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by muriel

Any by doing so, IMO, Meghan has very wisely extended this whole drama out by another year.

You forgot the quotation marks on: wisely.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

You forgot the quotation marks on: wisely.

I guess, wisdom, too lies in the eyes of the beholder!

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by poppy7

To save time and money and most importantly: No one talks. You get your costs covered. Maybe. Not damages and at Judges discretion. It's ideal for copywriters cases but can be refused.

This is more accurate of a settlement. The point of a summary judgment is not to save time and money, although it does both. The point is that there IS no trial to be had, because after both sides have made their points clear, there are no contested facts determinative to the outcome. Because the point of a trial is to decide between a set of contested facts, there can be no trial.

Summary judgment often leads to a separate trial solely to determine damages.

[Hallo girl]

To be even handed on this if I was required to give evidence in a case that was so personal to me I would not want to be doing it via a zoom call.

[Denville]

But if there is no trial, just a judgement, then they are hardly prolonging the case.

[Katymcwaity]

Also Duchess of Sussex lost appeal against MoS using finding freedom in its defence.

https://twitter.com/chrisshipitv/sta...817013253?s=21