[ad_1]
Meghan feared a repeat of Thomas Markle’s claims that she had “dumped” him and failed to contact him, even though she had called, texted and written to “try to persuade him to leave. dealing with the media, “documents presented to the Alto. Court by claim of his lawyers. The document says she indicated to someone she knew who had been contacted by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, the authors of Finding Freedom, that the “true position” could be “communicated to the authors to avoid further misrepresentation.”
It says the Duchess of Sussex did not know how and if the “only piece of information” about her communication with her father was shared with the perpetrators.
Meghan, 39, is suing the Mail on Sunday Associated Newspapers (ANL) publisher for publishing parts of a handwritten letter she sent to Markle, 76, in August 2018.
She is seeking compensation for alleged misuse of private information, violation of the Data Protection Act and violation of copyright in five articles published in February 2019 that included excerpts from the “private and confidential” letter to her father.
In September, the ANL received permission to rely on Finding Freedom, a biography of Meghan and Harry published in August, in its written defense of the Duchess’ claim in High Court.
In their reformulated response to ANL’s defense, Meghan’s legal team argues that neither she nor Harry cooperated with the authors of the book, did not meet with the writers, and were not interviewed for the biography, formally or informally.
He states that Meghan “was concerned that her father’s narrative would be repeated in the media that she had abandoned him and had not even tried to contact him (which was false), when in fact she had tried to call him and send him a message from text, and had even written him a letter to try to persuade him to stop dealing with the media and he had replied.
“Consequently, he indicated to a person whom he knew that the authors had already contacted them that the true position mentioned above (that that person and several others who knew the complainant already knew about) could be communicated to the authors to avoid more misrepresentations.
“He does not know to what extent or on what terms this information regarding her communications with her father was shared with the author.”
READ MORE: Royal Family LIVE: Meghan and Harry’s actions at ‘any cost’
The document also denied that Meghan “knowingly caused or allowed information about her personal relationship and / or communications with her father, including the existence of the letter and a description of its contents, to enter the public domain.”
And it says that “for the avoidance of doubt,” Meghan did not provide the authors “directly or indirectly” with a copy of the letter to her father, its content, or a description of its content and her father’s response.
The document goes on to say: “To the best of the applicant’s knowledge, the authors did not have a copy of the letter or their father’s response.
“If someone provided you with a copy, this happened without your consent or knowledge and against your wishes.
The editor argued that the duchess gave the authors information about the letter to Mr. Markle “to present her own version of events in a way that is favorable to her.”
But Meghan’s lawyers dismissed claims that the Duke and Duchess “collaborated” with the perpetrators as a “conspiracy theory.”
They argued that any references to the letter in the book were simply “excerpts of the letter drawn from the defendant’s own articles.”
[ad_2]
