Public statement
British newspaper admits defeat to Duchess Meghan – and it will also be expensive
Duchess Meghan can be happy: She won the legal battle against the British newspaper group Associated Newspapers
© Simon Dawson // Picture Alliance
The British tabloid “Mail on Sunday” publicly admitted after a defeat in court that they should not have published a private letter from Duchess Meghan to her father. The whole thing will be expensive – but there is no apology.
Triumph for Duchess Meghan: Anyone who saw the front page of the British tabloid “Mail On Sunday” last Sunday read that she had won the legal battle against the newspaper. Prince Harry’s wife had sued because a private letter to her father with whom she had fallen out had been published. In a brief report, the Associated Newspapers publishing group has now admitted defeat – because the court ordered it.
The court found the Duchess of Sussex right. “The court found that Associated Newspapers infringed their copyright law by publishing excerpts from their handwritten letter to their father in the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online,” reads. A financial compensation was agreed, it is also said. How high it turns out is not known. But Meghan’s legal fees alone are said to be almost two million dollars – and these have to be paid for by the loser.
Duchess Meghan wins in court – but there is no excuse
A judge at the London High Court had already classified the handwritten letter as “personal and private” and the publication as illegal in February. The publisher did not want to accept that and appealed. He relied, among other things, on the testimony of the Duchess’ former PR advisor, Jason Knauf. He said that Meghan wrote the letter knowing that its contents could leak. But the appellate court recently followed the assessment of the lower court. He upheld “the decision of the judge that the Duchess could reasonably expect that her private life will be respected,” said the appellate judge.
And so Meghan could at least look forward to the correction. What is missing, however, is an apology for invading their privacy. The 40-year-old had explicitly requested this in court, but the publisher refrained from doing so.
Sources: “Daily Mail”, “The Hollywood Reporter”