Markle vs. Associated Newspapers: Inside the Case of the Century

It should have been one of the most dramatic days in recent real history. On April 24, a horde of UK legal superstars should have arrived at the High Court in London to start what will be one of the most watched and potentially damaging legal shots in recent history.

On the one hand, Associated Newspapers, the parent company of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, and on the other, Meghan Duchess of Sussex.

It was expected to be a dramatic day.

Instead, the preliminary hearing in the case was conducted through Microsoft Teams with hordes of journalists who registered to witness the first round in this confrontation in court.

Despite the fact that it was 3:30 a.m. in Los Angeles, Meghan and her husband Harry Duke, from Sussex, have also watched the proceedings unfold.

During Friday night, New Zealand time, Supreme Court Justice Sir Mark Warby ruled against the Duchess, removing parts of her case. His team will not be able to argue that the Post “caused” problems with his father Thomas Markle, that they had an “agenda” against him and that they acted dishonestly.

Despite this setback, this is only the first round in what could be a lengthy legal matchup.

While other members of the royal family (including Princess Diana of Wales, Prince Charles, and the Queen) have sued the newspapers before, they were generally matters that were concluded relatively quickly.

This case, on the other hand, seems to be a much longer issue with the Duchess’s relationship with her separated father Thomas at the center of the proceedings.

This is what you need to know:

THE LEGAL EAGLES

Striped Politesse? Puh-lease. The Sussexs have brought a superstar power to the proceedings in their choice of a legal team. (Or, as the Times put it: “Instead of buckled legal representatives, the Sussexs have instructed a group of Rottweilers.”)

Leading his case is attorney David Sherborne, whose former clients include Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Sir Paul McCartney, Hugh Grant and Diana, Princess of Wales early in her career.

Also on Meghan’s side is the high-profile law firm of Schillings, where partner Jenny Afia is handling the royalty case.

Afia, in 2019, told a magazine that she wanted to have “two of the most influential women in the world … as my clients.”

Representing the Associated Newspaper is Antony White QC, a lawyer who previously co-founded a predominantly human rights-related practice with Cherie Blair and others.

He has also represented Naomi Campbell in successfully suing the Daily Mirror.

THE LETTER THAT STARTED IT ALL

In August 2018, Meghan sent a five-page handwritten letter to her father, Thomas Markle, in Mexico.

She did this after it was revealed that her father had been mounting photos with the paparazzi and had missed her May 2018 wedding.

After the story about the staged images made headlines, Thomas, who had been scheduled to take his daughter out into the hall, was hospitalized with heart problems and refused to attend weddings.

The following February, People magazine published a cover story titled “Meghan Markle’s Friends Break Their Silence: We Want to Tell the Truth” which quotes five anonymous friends of the Duchess.

They claimed that Thomas, an Emmy-winning TV lighting director, had not called or texted his daughter despite his letter.

In the article, they said, “He knows how to get in touch with her … They never called him; they never texted him. It’s super painful.”

Days later, the Post published excerpts from the letter in question under the title “Revealed: The letter depicting the true tragedy of Meghan’s breakup with a father she says” has broken her heart into a million pieces. “

Supreme Court Justice Sir Mark Warby, who oversees the case, will have to decide whether the duchess had a “reasonable expectation” that her letter would remain private.

THE BOMBSHELL ADVERTISEMENT

In October last year, Meghan announced that she was suing Associated Newspapers for publishing excerpts of her letter in five articles.

More specifically, you are suing for misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and breach of the 2018 Data Protection Act.

At the same time that the couple revealed their legal counterattack, Harry wrote a deeply emotional statement condemning what he called the “ruthless campaign” against Meghan, writing: “I lost my mother and now I see my wife falling victim to the same powerful forces” . “

Later, Thomas told the Daily Mail: “I decided to publish parts of the letter because of the article by Meghan’s friends in People magazine. I have to defend myself. I only published parts of the letter because other parts were very painful. The letter did not seem to me loving. I found it painful. “

Associated Newspapers has said it will “vigorously” defend the case.

THE MYSTERIES

This is where the People story gets back to things.

Associated Newspapers has argued that the letter was already in the public domain after Meghan’s peers referenced it in the previous story in the American magazine.

Meghan has denied knowing that her unidentified friends were speaking to People.

The documents presented by her legal team say “… the truth is that the author did not know that an interview of this type had been given or, more importantly, that the letter would be referred to …”.

However, according to the (UK) Telegraph, “the defense claims that it cannot have been unaware that they were giving such a high profile, outside of the interview about it.”

It read: “The People interview described Mr. Markle as having acted irrationally and without love, having had cold shoulders with his daughter, and being solely to blame for the estrangement between father and daughter. This was a one-sided and / or misleading narrative and false “.

THE EMOTIONAL TEXTS

Meghan’s team has submitted as evidence several texts in which the Sussexes attempted to speak to Thomas in the run-up to their wedding.

In one, Harry wrote, “Any conversation with the press will backfire, trust me, Tom. Only we can help you, as we’ve been trying since day one.”

In another, Meghan said, “I’ve called and texted, but I haven’t heard from you, so I hope you’re okay.”

THE HAND-WRITING ARGUMENT

Before becoming a successful actress, Meghan worked as a freelance calligraphy, including wedding invitations for Robin Thicke and Paula Patton’s 2005 nuptials. His particularly elegant script has also been drawn in this case.

The Associated Newspapers has claimed that its “elaborate” handwriting is proof that the former Suits star expected other people to read the letter.

Meghan has denied this and says the letter was “originally drafted electronically and then handwritten.”

He also denied knowing or believing that Thomas would reveal the letter to the press.

So Megan lost the first round

Yes.

Last week, during the preliminary hearing, his team had argued that they should be allowed to argue that the newspaper had an “obvious agenda of publishing intrusive or offensive stories” about royalty and that it had “caused” problems with Thomas.

However, in the written ruling published Friday night, Judge Warby rejected those claims and wrote: “Some of the allegations are considered irrelevant for the purpose for which they are alleged.

“Some were crossed out for the additional or alternative reason that they are not adequately detailed.

“I do not consider that the accusations made on that basis go to the ‘heart’; of the case, which essentially refers to the publication of five articles that reveal the words and information extracted from the letter written by the plaintiff to his father in August of 2018 “.

However, he left the door open to re-present some of the claims and said: “Some aspects of the case that I have dismissed at this stage can be revived if put in the right way.”

The impact this decision will have on your case will depend on who you listen to.

The Times reports that his law firm Schillings has said: “Today’s ruling makes it very clear that the core elements of this case remain unchanged and will continue to move forward. The Duchess’s rights were violated; the legal boundaries around the Privacy”.

However, Howard Kennedy’s partner Mark Stephens told Mail Online: “For Meghan, this trial is like a train crashing into a gasoline tanker at a level crossing. It is a complete disaster. Today it has been humiliated”.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Not much at the moment. No date has been set for the full trial that could occur later this year or in 2021.

MEGHAN WILL TAKE THE SUPPORT

Potentially.

Sherborne told the proceedings: “The defendant (Associated Newspapers) wants to question her (Meghan) about whether that belief is reasonable or not, and they can do it.”

How about Thomas?

Again maybe. In January of this year, it was reported that Thomas Markle had agreed to be a witness to the Post on Sunday.

THE COURT SHOWDOWN

Meghan and Thomas have not seen each other in person for at least two years. When the hearing begins in full, the first physical father-daughter meeting may take place from either side of the London courtroom.

How much does this cost cost?

Estimates of how much this costs the Sussex alone have varied, from over $ 110,000 to $ 670,000. No matter which side comes out legally at the end of it all, the attorneys involved on both sides seem to be the ultimate winners.

THE WAITING GAME

While a date has not yet been set for the full hearing, one thing is for sure: the world’s eyes will be glued to the proceedings.