We will use your email address only for sending you newsletters. Please see our Privacy Notice for details of your data protection rights.

The latest hearing on Meghan’s privacy court case against Associated Newspapers is taking place today. The Duchess of Sussex’s lawyers are applying for summary judgement, which if approved would in effect end the case without a full trial.

Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the duchess, described the hand-written letter as “a heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter to her father”, which Meghan sent to Mr Markle “at his home in Mexico via a trusted contact … to reduce the risk of interception”.

He said the “contents and character of the letter were intrinsically private, personal and sensitive in nature” and Meghan therefore “had a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of the contents of the letter”.

Mr Rushbrooke added in written submissions: “It is as good an example as one could find of a letter that any person of ordinary sensibilities would not want to be disclosed to third parties, let alone in a mass media publication, in a sensational context and to serve the commercial purposes of the newspaper.”

Meghan’s legal team also said the decision to publish the letter was an assault on “her private life, her family life and her correspondence”, in documents submitted before the hearing.

She is seeking damages for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act over five articles, published in February 2019, which included extracts from the “private and confidential” letter to her father.

Meghan’s lawyers asked for the possibility to apply for summary judgement in October, saying they were confident in her case and did not believe the defence’s case had a chance of succeeding.

The Duchess of Sussex’s legal team added they did not believe there was a compelling reason for the trial to go ahead.

The full trial was scheduled to begin on January 11 and to last between eight to 10 days.

However, Mr Justice Warby ruled in favour of another application issued by Meghan’s lawyers last autumn.

In late October, the Duchess’ legal team put forward “confidential” reasons to apply for a delay of the trial.

These reasons were provided to the judge during a private hearing to protect “the confidentiality of the information relied on”, as revealed by Mr Justice Warby, and have remained undisclosed.

In October 29 Mr Justice Warby ruled: “The right decision in all the circumstances is to grant the application to adjourn.

“That means that the trial date of January 11 2021 will be vacated and the trial will be refixed for a new date in the autumn.”

Meghan sued Associated Newspapers after the Mail on Sunday published in extracts of a letter the Duchess sent to her father in August 2018.

Meghan is seeking damages for alleged misuse of private information, copyright infringement and breach of the Data Protection Act.

Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail and MailOnline, wholly denies the allegations, particularly the Duchess’s claim the letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning, and says it will contest the case.

Antony White QC, representing ANL, said in written submissions that the case was “wholly unsuitable for summary judgment”.

Mr White said there was “uncertainty as to a number of significant factual matters which can, and should, be investigated at trial when the court will have the full picture in terms of disclosure and evidence”.

He added: “This is particularly so when the claimant’s case in respect of certain important factual issues has shifted, (including) in relation to the circumstances in which the letter was written and the extent to which she had disclosed information about the letter with a view to publication.

“There are now on the record a number of inconsistent statements made by her that she will need to explain.”

Mr White argued that, if the court assessed whether Meghan had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the letter, “it would be likely to come to the conclusion that the claimant has not shown a reasonable expectation of privacy” and that “on the contrary, she expected or intended its contents to enter the public domain”.

Source: Read Full Article