Harry & Meghan: Legal Actions against the Media


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Settlement requires some form of agreement between the parties. Meghan could certainly discontinue her claim but I would be interested in knowing what that involves in the UK. Here in Queensland, once a Defence has been entered, the Claim can only be withdrawn with the leave of the Court or the consent of the Defendant (i.e. Associated Press).

If the Defendant agrees to the discontinuance they can do so on any terms they wish but the Plaintiff (i.e. Meghan) is liable for costs, it's just that the Defendant can agree to waive them. If they do so with the leave of the Court, then the Judge can make any orders s/he thinks appropriate regarding costs.

So even if Meghan wants to withdraw her claim (and if the process in the UK is the same as it is here) she may not be able to do so without paying AP a hefty sum in costs if AP decides to play hardball.

Criminal is different but for a civil case

Right to discontinue claim
38.2

(1) A claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim at any time.

(2) However –

(a) a claimant must obtain the permission of the court if he wishes to discontinue all or part of a claim in relation to which –

(i) the court has granted an interim injunction(GL); or

(ii) any party has given an undertaking to the court;

(b) where the claimant has received an interim payment in relation to a claim (whether voluntarily or pursuant to an order under Part 25), he may discontinue that claim only if –

(i) the defendant who made the interim payment consents in writing; or

(ii) the court gives permission;

(c) where there is more than one claimant, a claimant may not discontinue unless –

(i) every other claimant consents in writing; or

(ii) the court gives permission.

(3) Where there is more than one defendant, the claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim against all or any of the defendants.

Liability for costs
38.6

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

(2) If proceedings are only partly discontinued –

(a) the claimant is liable under paragraph (1) for costs relating only to the part of the proceedings which he is discontinuing; and

(b) unless the court orders otherwise, the costs which the claimant is liable to pay must not be assessed until the conclusion of the rest of the proceedings.

(3) This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.

(Rule 44.9 provides for the basis of assessment where the right to costs arises on discontinuance and contains provisions about when a costs order is deemed to have been made and applying for an order under section 194(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007)

So basically as it stands she can wothdraw.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Settlement requires some form of agreement between the parties. Meghan could certainly discontinue her claim but I would be interested in knowing what that involves in the UK. Here in Queensland, once a Defence has been entered, the Claim can only be withdrawn with the leave of the Court or the consent of the Defendant (i.e. Associated Press).

If the Defendant agrees to the discontinuance they can do so on any terms they wish but the Plaintiff (i.e. Meghan) is liable for costs, it's just that the Defendant can agree to waive them. If they do so with the leave of the Court, then the Judge can make any orders s/he thinks appropriate regarding costs.

So even if Meghan wants to withdraw her claim (and if the process in the UK is the same as it is here) she may not be able to do so without paying AP a hefty sum in costs if AP decides to play hardball.
That makes sense. She was the one who started the case, so if she decides to withdraw; why would the defendant not be compensated for the costs they needlessly made? Only for her to find out that she didn't want to pursue the case any further.
 
No he very clearly wrapped both on the knuckles for using the court case to bring up other issues and being interested in playing this out in the court of public opinion.

Bit of a slap for Meghan. But needed to be said. She has been hyperbolic and went over the top. The mediansre always hyperbolic and go over the top.

The judge is clearly exasperated with both sides. There are a couple of places in the ruling where he could have summed his thoughts up nicely just by drawing this: ? ?

The poor man must sit there dissecting People magazine articles, reading pages upon pages of legalese about secret letters and secret friends, and wonder what he’s done to deserve this.
 
The judge is clearly exasperated with both sides. There are a couple of places in the ruling where he could have summed his thoughts up nicely just by drawing this: �� ��

The poor man must sit there dissecting People magazine articles, reading pages upon pages of legalese about secret letters and secret friends, and wonder what he’s done to deserve this.

He himself was a media barrister. It isn't the first time at the rodeo. That the media are behaving like this is not a a surprise. He has defended them himself in the past. That Meghan’s extent is so ingrained has actually shocked me a bit.

She can at any time. She will just have to pay a 7 figure sums to the MoS for their legal costs

She may have to anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's most definitely not a surprise that the DM went directly from the court room and put various confidential papers directly on their website, nor is them waiting for the most advantageous time to file documents so they can make the morning papers. They have zero reputation to lose, all this has happened before and will happen again.

Meghan most definitely does have a reputation to lose and to be called out for leaking supposedly confidential documents to her pet journalists within minutes of court whilst being the claimant in a privacy and copyright case is ironic. And also being told bluntly by the judge that her own statement "contained little that was true" is interesting.
 
Last edited:
It's most definitely not a surprise that the DM went directly from the court room and put various confidential papers directly on their website is not a surprise, nor is them waiting for the most advantageous time to file documents so they can make the morning papers. They have zero reputation to lose, all this has happened before and will happen again.

Meghan most definitely does have a reputation to lose and to be called out for leaking supposedly confidential documents to her pet journalists within minutes of court whilst being the claimant in a privacy and copyright case is ironic. And also being told bluntly by the judge that her own statement "contained little that was true" is interesting.

Was there evidence Meghan was the one who leaked filing the case? There are plenty of people working at a courthouse who could have leaked it. As far as I know the DM only said they didnt leak it.
 
Was there evidence Meghan was the one who leaked filing the case? There are plenty of people working at a courthouse who could have leaked it. As far as I know the DM only said they didnt leak

Sure, courthouse workers leak. You can't claim someones innocence by throwing aspirations on people who, as a part of their career, sign non disclosures. I am a little tired of the 'it is all someone else's fault,' narrative. Meghan is not the centre of the people who work at the high courts world. Particularly when they are type who have never, in their lives, even bought a tabloid. And value their careers and think it is value work.

She leaked it. Or her people did. If you hear hooves.
 
Last edited:
Was there evidence Meghan was the one who leaked filing the case? There are plenty of people working at a courthouse who could have leaked it. As far as I know the DM only said they didnt leak it.

This whole section says that the judge agrees with the DM's solicitor that Meghan or one of her PR team/solicitors directly gave sympathetic journalists her statements. No one is trying to suggest clerks or administrators leaked it:

27. The defendant suggests that the claimant’s side briefed the press in relation to this application, and the evidence bears this out. The record shows that the application notice and supporting witness statements were all submitted for filing at 8:06am and filed at 8.32am. The evidence of Mr Mathieson is that they were served on the defendant at 8:30am and that by 8:45am, within 15 minutes of receiving the application, he received a call from a representative of Sky News asking if he had a comment to make about it. The defendant’s side had not made the application public. At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely. From 10:02 the national media were reporting at length on the content of the claimant’s witness statement. The Sun reported under the headline “GAME PLAYING. Meghan Markle says ‘I’m not on trial’ as she tried to ban ‘vicious’ naming of pals who gave interview to support her”. There was much in similar vein, in (among other outlets) Sky News, The Times, The Express online, The Daily Telegraph. Again, no detailed analysis has been conducted but it seems improbable that all this reporting was a product of searches of the CE File system.

None of this is particularly surprising but it is notable that Meghan and her team got slapped down so hard for it. And it goes against her claim of privacy and copyright being important. Both sides are more interested in playing this out in the media and making it a trial about Meghan's entire time in the UK.

And since Omid Scobie was named and the judge agreed he was deliberately leaked to within minutes of the statement being filed, it also fans the flames on Finding Freedom and those extremely intimate thoughts and details he wrote about.
 
And also being told bluntly by the judge that her own statement "contained little that was true" is interesting.

My reading of the judge's comment on the claimant's witness statement is that he was not deeming it to contain untrue factual allegations, but that he contended it contained few "factual [allegations...] that needed to be proven" and consisted in the main of "argument, comment, and criticism of the defendant". I think, in short, the judge was claiming that the claimant's witness statement focused on the claimant's critical opinions about the defendant instead of facts pertaining to the case.

26. [...] The other statement was from the claimant herself. It was short, containing little that was factual – or certainly little that needed to be proved, by the claimant or anyone else. Mr Rushbrooke has not seen a need to rely on the claimant’s witness statement in his written or oral submissions. The statement did contain argument, comment, and criticism of the defendant, including this (in paragraph 5):-

“Each of these women is a private citizen … and each has a basic right to privacy. …for the Mail on Sunday to expose them in the public domain for no reason other than clickbait and commercial gain is vicious and poses a threat to their emotional and mental wellbeing. The Mail on Sunday is playing a media game with real lives.”​
 
Am I the only one who feels like Meghan (and her team) thinks of this trial in very american way, and the way trials work in the UK is quite different?

It's been pretty much clear from the start that MOS will win this - even if they lose in court (which is not likely, but possible) the money they'll earn reporting on this will still make it profitable for them.
 
Am I the only one who feels like Meghan (and her team) thinks of this trial in very american way, and the way trials work in the UK is quite different?

It's been pretty much clear from the start that MOS will win this - even if they lose in court (which is not likely, but possible) the money they'll earn reporting on this will still make it profitable for them.

Libel trials are never about money. It's about reputation and they are rare now in the UK.

Most famous previous one would have been Max Mosley pre Levenson. In fact he started Levenson because he had an axe to grind in that the News of the World resulted in his sons relapse to addiction.

Meghan is doing what these trials are about. Problem is she is doing what she is suing for...to a media savvy judge.
 
Sure, courthouse workers leak. You can't claim someones innocence by throwing aspirations on people who, as a part of their career, sign non disclosures. I am a little tired of the 'it is all someone else's fault,' narrative. Meghan is not the centre of the people who work at the high courts world. Particularly when they are type who have never, in their lives, even bought a tabloid. And value their careers and think it is value work.

She leaked it. Or her people did. If you hear hooves.

If you hear hooves.

It could be horses, or a donkey, or a poney, or even a recording of the aforementioned.

I'm not saying she didn't leak, I'm merely pointing out there are multiple ways in which this type of information could have gotten out. Hey someone at the lawoffice could have leaked it. Perhaps one of the other royal offices leaked it.

I am one of those people who have signed disclosures. I also know where I work computor monitores are stolen. People aren't perfect and money rules.

What I get from Harry and Meghan isn't "it's everybody's fault but not ours". That seems to be a narrative everyone else has. Just like the "Meghan preaches about the environment", because as far as I know she never did.

I simply really dislike the fact that a lot of people seem to blame her for everything and treat him like a mindless puppet. And I still feel like we don't know everything about these people. There have been stories for a bloody long time about the relationships within the BRF. Perhaps not all is what it seems.
 
If you hear hooves.

It could be horses, or a donkey, or a poney, or even a recording of the aforementioned.

I'm not saying she didn't leak, I'm merely pointing out there are multiple ways in which this type of information could have gotten out. Hey someone at the lawoffice could have leaked it. Perhaps one of the other royal offices leaked it.

I am one of those people who have signed disclosures. I also know where I work computor monitores are stolen. People aren't perfect and money rules.

What I get from Harry and Meghan isn't "it's everybody's fault but not ours". That seems to be a narrative everyone else has. Just like the "Meghan preaches about the environment", because as far as I know she never did.

I simply really dislike the fact that a lot of people seem to blame her for everything and treat him like a mindless puppet. And I still feel like we don't know everything about these people. There have been stories for a bloody long time about the relationships within the BRF. Perhaps not all is what it seems.

I don't blame them for everything. I certainly don't believe everything. But there are two things which are, on the balance of probability, fact.

1. Scobie's book is theirs.

2. They leak to the sympathetic press.

She leaked this because soon after it was available.to the public anyway. The judge discounts that as un likely source.

You are basically saying everyone else is the leaker. Everyone else is the cause of this stuff. They aren't.

Also I would like to point out that every single member of the royal.press know the name of Friend B and that includes all court staff. And they didn't say anything. I am tired of this. All of it. When there is now legal evidence that she does what we have always thought she does. That the media do it is news to precisely no one and that is why we don't call them on it. We know they are at fault.
 
Last edited:
The judge clearly called both sides out, not just Meghan's.

And the fact that the British tabloids are vile doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called to account for their actions or just be beyond criticism because of past behaviour.
 
If you hear hooves.

Just like the "Meghan preaches about the environment", because as far as I know she never did.

I simply really dislike the fact that a lot of people seem to blame her for everything and treat him like a mindless puppet. And I still feel like we don't know everything about these people. There have been stories for a bloody long time about the relationships within the BRF. Perhaps not all is what it seems.
Actually people complan about HARRY preachign about eco travel and travelling in private jets.
 
Harry isn't involved in this particular legal action, nor are his statements about Eco travel etc anything to do with this case.
 
The judge clearly called both sides out, not just Meghan's.

And the fact that the British tabloids are vile doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called to account for their actions or just be beyond criticism because of past behaviour.

Didn't say that. Said it wasn't news they did this.

The tabloid press, irrespective of nationality, are sensationalist and hyperbolic. We know that. It is confirmation that she is at it too.
 
Last edited:
People are forgetting themselves a bit. Any court employee who has access to court documents will have to log in to a system that will trace who is pulling up the documents and when. If there was any suspicion that these leaks were internal, the judge simply would have pulled a record of who accessed the records. And if you were Meghan's team and were accused of leaking but didn't, you would demand that someone check who has accessed the documents.
 
Nothing was "confirmed" -- what the judge said to the MOS claim that it was "likely."

Personally I am sure they did give a heads up to friendly press. Interesting enough the Telegraph actually wrote their story before Omid though MOS singled him out. It was going to be public info anyways but seems that her team did alert them. But it is far from confirmed in those documents. Just pointing that out.

Both sides were trying to play this out in public. Judge rightfully pointed it out and said to stop the delay tactics.
 
People are forgetting themselves a bit. Any court employee who has access to court documents will have to log in to a system that will trace who is pulling up the documents and when. If there was any suspicion that these leaks were internal, the judge simply would have pulled a record of who accessed the records. And if you were Meghan's team and were accused of leaking but didn't, you would demand that someone check who has accessed the documents.

Granted, I haven't the faintest idea what type of system the courts in the UK uses, but where I work, I can log into the system and as long as I don't change anything, no-one will know.

The system records changes, nothing else.

You are basically saying everyone else is the leaker. Everyone else is the cause of this stuff. They aren't.

Actually no. I said this:
I'm not saying she didn't leak, I'm merely pointing out there are multiple ways in which this type of information could have gotten out. Hey someone at the lawoffice could have leaked it. Perhaps one of the other royal offices leaked it.

I don't really care if she did or not. If she never leaked she'd be the only one in those bloody offices. There have been stories for years of members of the royal family to leak things to the press. Just to get favorable stories out. Currently it's William and/or Catherine, afraid of their own "failing popularity".

It seems like that entire family is one big popularity contest. And if it's not the members themselves it's the courtiers and press offices.
 
Granted, I haven't the faintest idea what type of system the courts in the UK uses, but where I work, I can log into the system and as long as I don't change anything, no-one will know.

The system records changes, nothing else.



Actually no. I said this:

I don't really care if she did or not. If she never leaked she'd be the only one in those bloody offices. There have been stories for years of members of the royal family to leak things to the press. Just to get favorable stories out. Currently it's William and/or Catherine, afraid of their own "failing popularity".

It seems like that entire family is one big popularity contest. And if it's not the members themselves it's the courtiers and press offices.

I think the spike stories and PR offensive started by others is not the same to be honest. To be honest the last time it was like this Diana and everything that surrounded her.
 
I think the spike stories and PR offensive started by others is not the same to be honest. To be honest the last time it was like this Diana and everything that surrounded her.

Charles using his own sons to get better press? That was long after Diana died. If, and I say if, Meghan and/or Harry cooperated with Finding Freedom, the main question is, to what extent. Was there one interview? Two or more interviews? Did they get a list of questions to answer? Did they ghost write the book.

As for the leaking, for me it all depends on what they leaked. For me there is a difference in leaking information about oneself or information about others (like Charles and now, supposedly, William).

There are some people out there who believe every story in the papers was, and still is, leaked by the Sussexes and that I don't buy. There are some who believe it's Kensington Palace.

https://www.her.ie/celeb/palace-trying-identify-person-whos-leaking-stories-meghan-kate-feud-438995

https://duchessofinfluence.com/2020/06/08/kensington-palace-in-toxic-partnership-with-tabloids/
 
Charles using his own sons to get better press? That was long after Diana died. If, and I say if, Meghan and/or Harry cooperated with Finding Freedom, the main question is, to what extent. Was there one interview? Two or more interviews? Did they get a list of questions to answer? Did they ghost write the book.

As for the leaking, for me it all depends on what they leaked. For me there is a difference in leaking information about oneself or information about others (like Charles and now, supposedly, William).

There are some people out there who believe every story in the papers was, and still is, leaked by the Sussexes and that I don't buy. There are some who believe it's Kensington Palace.

https://www.her.ie/celeb/palace-trying-identify-person-whos-leaking-stories-meghan-kate-feud-438995

https://duchessofinfluence.com/2020/06/08/kensington-palace-in-toxic-partnership-with-tabloids/

That Charles has done that is well documented. He basically spiked stories on himself and gave them.stories of the boys. Well known spike tactic. No you can't have this.story but I will give you that one. The politics of the game.

That the Sussexes leaked every story I don't believe. That Kensington palace trade stories and spike stories yes...but, as of yet, we have no evidence they leak persae.
 
When you're the claimant in a privacy and copyright case which hinges on whether or not you intended for the letter you wrote to your father to be leaked to gain sympathy and whether you organised friends to leak on your behalf and the judge in the case agrees in the official documents that your side currently is actually leaking to sympathetic journalists, that's pretty ironic and paints a picture.

Then there's the fact that one of them wrote a book which you also claim to have nothing to do with.

The DM is vile but in this case they aren't the ones that are trying to claim moral high ground and to protect their reputation either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fem
Nothing was "confirmed" -- what the judge said to the MOS claim that it was "likely."

Personally I am sure they did give a heads up to friendly press. Interesting enough the Telegraph actually wrote their story before Omid though MOS singled him out. It was going to be public info anyways but seems that her team did alert them. But it is far from confirmed in those documents. Just pointing that out.

Both sides were trying to play this out in public. Judge rightfully pointed it out and said to stop the delay tactics.

The MoS probably wants to subpoena Omid and use the book as further proof that Meghan underminded her own privacy . There is also an interview in which Omid declared that Meghan wrote the letter with the public in mind and expected the letter to be published .
 
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Splash News, a paparazzi picture agency, over pictures of her walking with Archie and her dogs in a public park in Vancouver in January.


Article from the Evening Standard
 
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Splash News, a paparazzi picture agency, over pictures of her walking with Archie and her dogs in a public park in Vancouver in January.


Article from the Evening Standard

Honest question; so it's possible to make a court case in London to sue a LA based company for something that happened in Vancouver to an American citizen who now resides in LA?

Wow, that's three countries and two continents involve there.
 
But isn't this old news that has been resurected again. I thought this was in the news back in March.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom