By Lucy Caulkett-
The High Court today struck out ‘irrelevant” aspects of Meghan Markle claims against Associated Newspapers, stating that they should not forma part of her case.
Her claim against the publisher included allegations that it acted “dishonestly” by leaving out certain passages of the “private and confidential” letter , a claim that was struck out by the judge in his ruling. Warby also struck out allegations that the publisher deliberately “stirred up” issues between Meghan and her father, and that it had an “agenda” of publishing intrusive or offensive stories about her.
The High Court judge ruled that those allegations should not form part of her case at this stage, because they were “irrelevant” to her claim for misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of Britain’s Data Protection Act. Meghan is suing over five articles, two in the Mail on Sunday and three on MailOnline, which were published in February 2019. They included parts of a letter she wrote to her estranged father Thomas Markle, 75, in August 2018.
Her London legal team, led by barrister David Sherborne, also accused journalists of ‘dishonesty’, stirring up conflict between Meghan and her father, and maliciously pursuing an agenda to portray her in a false and damaging light.
”’I have struck out all the passages attacked in the application notice. Some of the allegations are struck out as irrelevant to the purpose for which they are pleaded. Some are struck out on the further or alternative ground that they are inadequately detailed. I have also acted so as to confine the case to what is reasonably necessary and proportionate for the purpose of doing justice between these parties’.
Mr Markle says he shared the letter with The Mail on Sunday only after Meghan’s friends gave an interview about it to the US magazine People. He claims to have disclosed the letter to show the world it was not the tender message her friends had suggested, the newspaper said defence. Meghan claims to have been ‘distressed’ when an interview with five anonymous women when they disclosed an interview
Her lawyer David Sherbornein in court documents claims that the dutchess had no knowledge of the interview by her friends. He said: ‘[She] did not know that her friends were giving an interview to People magazine, let alone that one of them would refer to the letter.’ The eventual case will now rest on whether’s Meghan’s expectation of privacy was reasonable and whether publishing parts of the letter was in the public interest.
He said: ‘The defendant [Associated Newspapers] wants to cross-examine her [Meghan] as to whether that belief is reasonable or not – and they can do that’. These claims will now not be heard in any future trial.e said those allegations should not form part of her case at this stage, because they were “irrelevant” to her claim for misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of Britain’s Data Protection Act.
In a statement after the judgement, a spokesperson for the Schillings law firm, which is representing Meghan, said the ruling “makes very clear that the core elements of this case do not change and will continue to move forward.
They added: “The duchess’ rights were violated; the legal boundaries around privacy were crossed. As part of this process, the extremes to which The Mail On Sunday used distortive, manipulative, and dishonest tactics to target the Duchess of Sussex have been put on full display.”The spokesperson added that they are “surprised” that the judge’s ruling “suggests that dishonest behaviour is not relevant” but they respected the judges decision.
Image:Fox News