..against the Duchess of Sussex.
I was told by a media person before the judgement that if the Fail had just quoted parts of the letter rather than print pictures of it they would have got away with it.
From the Slaver if you wish to click through:
Meghan wins privacy case against Mail on Sunday | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian
Or from the Fail itself (though you have to hunt for it and oddly it isn't "Daily Mail Reporter")..
Meghan Markle wins privacy case against Mail on Sunday over letter to father | Daily Mail Online
The Duchess of Sussex has won her claim that her privacy was breached over the publication of a letter to her father Thomas, the High Court ruled today.
Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, for misuse of private information, and infringement of copyright for publishing extracts of a letter she sent her father Mr Markle, 76, after her royal wedding in 2018.
Following today's ruling, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline said they would be considering an appeal.
A spokesman said: 'We are very surprised by today's summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial. We are carefully considering the judgement's contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal.'
Mr Justice Warby ruled the issue over ownership of copyright of the letter she wrote to Mr Markle can be decided at trial.
In his ruling, he said that Meghan had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and that it was 'fanciful to think otherwise.'
The High Court's decision to grant the summary judgment means that Meghan will now not have to go into the witness box to give evidence in her privacy case, thereby avoiding a 'face off' against her estranged father, who was also expected to take to the stand on behalf of the publisher.
Referring to the letter, Mr Justice Warby said in his judgment: 'It was, in short, a personal and private letter. The majority of what was published was about the claimant's own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father's behaviour – as she saw it – and the resulting rift between them.
'These are inherently private and personal matters.'
The judge added: 'The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private.'
I was told by a media person before the judgement that if the Fail had just quoted parts of the letter rather than print pictures of it they would have got away with it.
From the Slaver if you wish to click through:
Meghan wins privacy case against Mail on Sunday | Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex | The Guardian
Or from the Fail itself (though you have to hunt for it and oddly it isn't "Daily Mail Reporter")..
Meghan Markle wins privacy case against Mail on Sunday over letter to father | Daily Mail Online
The Duchess of Sussex has won her claim that her privacy was breached over the publication of a letter to her father Thomas, the High Court ruled today.
Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publishers of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline, for misuse of private information, and infringement of copyright for publishing extracts of a letter she sent her father Mr Markle, 76, after her royal wedding in 2018.
Following today's ruling, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline said they would be considering an appeal.
A spokesman said: 'We are very surprised by today's summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial. We are carefully considering the judgement's contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal.'
Mr Justice Warby ruled the issue over ownership of copyright of the letter she wrote to Mr Markle can be decided at trial.
In his ruling, he said that Meghan had a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and that it was 'fanciful to think otherwise.'
The High Court's decision to grant the summary judgment means that Meghan will now not have to go into the witness box to give evidence in her privacy case, thereby avoiding a 'face off' against her estranged father, who was also expected to take to the stand on behalf of the publisher.
Referring to the letter, Mr Justice Warby said in his judgment: 'It was, in short, a personal and private letter. The majority of what was published was about the claimant's own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father's behaviour – as she saw it – and the resulting rift between them.
'These are inherently private and personal matters.'
The judge added: 'The claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the Letter would remain private.'
Comment