Meghan Markle has won her bid to delay her privacy court battle for almost a year over a “confidential” matter, despite her dad warning “I could die tomorrow”.
The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail on Sunday, for releasing a letter she wrote to her estranged father Thomas Markle before her royal wedding in 2018.
A ten-day trial was set to take place in London on January 11 next year, where the 39-year-old royal and her father were expected to give evidence in the witness box.
But a private hearing was held at the High Court this morning before the judge agreed to delay the trial at the request of Meghan’s legal team.
Mr Justice Warby today said he had considered the request, made behind closed doors, and granted the delay until September 2021 at the earliest, adding the “primary basis” on which the adjournment was sought was “confidential”.
He said: “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.”
The decision comes after 76-year-old Thomas said he wanted to get the trial done “as quickly as possible” due to his ailing health, and that he was planning to travel to London for the High Court showdown.
In a statement to the court, Thomas said none of his male relatives had ever lived beyond 80 years of age, saying: “I am a realist and I could die tomorrow. The sooner this case takes place the better.”
The “elderly and sick” man, who currently lives in Mexico, also detailed his health concerns including struggling to walk 40 steps without getting out of breath.
RELATED: Meghan and Harry’s secret Sydney night out revealed in Finding Freedom
Meghan’s lawyers had also applied to appeal the judge’s decision that saw the explosive biography Finding Freedom to be included by the defence in the trial.
However Mr Justice Warby today refused the application.
The Mail on Sunday had been permitted to amend its defence that the Sussexes “co-operated” with the authors of the biography.
Jane Phillips, representing Meghan, told Mr Justice Warby: “The new case ought not to have been allowed.
She said: “It was speculative, it was unsubstantiated by evidence and it was inherently implausible and, we say most importantly, it was bad in law.”
She added that the new case was “not only a stab in the dark, but it was a stab in the dark in the wrong room”.
Finding Freedom, written by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, is a tell-all about the Sussexes experience when they quit as senior royals in what was dubbed ‘Megxit’.
Meghan had last month lost a court battle to block claims she allegedly co-operated with the authors.
She was accused of feeding personal information to the writers of the biography to “set out her own version of events in a way that is favourable to her”.
Legal experts today speculated the duchess might be hoping to avoid giving evidence during the trial, therefore steering clear of being cross-examined.
But a source close to the duchess said they believed they had “an overwhelmingly strong case”.
The source said: “We do not believe that the defence’s case has a chance of succeeding, and do not believe there is a compelling reason for trial.
“We are confident in our case and therefore believe it should be determined on a summary basis.”
Meghan’s team have also lodged an application for a summary judgment, arguing there isn’t a compelling reason for a trial.
RELATED: Embarrassing story behind Meghan and Harry’s wedding photo
However the decision to allow the summary judgment decision will not be made today as it was only filed by Meghan’s lawyers as recently as four working days ago.
Instead, her legal team will make their case for the judgment in January next year, when the original trial was supposed to be held.
If successful, a summary judgment would mean no trial would be held.
The Duchess is seeking damages from the Mail on Sunday for alleged misuse of private information, breaching the Data Protection Act and infringement of copyright over five articles published in February 2019 which included extracts from the “private and confidential” letter to her father.
Publisher Associated Newspapers claimed Prince Harry’s wife had herself leaked details of the letter to the media through friends.
The publisher argued that Meghan was “pleased” when five friends spoke up to defend her in an interview with People magazine, which mentioned the letter.
RELATED: Piers Morgan unleashes on Meghan’s Netflix shows
And last month the publisher sought permission to amend its defence to argue Meghan “co-operated with the authors of the recently published book Finding Freedom to put out their version of certain events”.
Anthony White QC, for the Mail on Sunday, said: “(Meghan) has allowed information about her private and family life, including her relationship and communications with her father and the letter, and the private and family lives of others, to enter the public domain by means of the book.”
Meghan was also told to pay $72,000 costs on top of estimated legal costs of $257,000.
Meghan’s lawyers have fiercely denied she collaborated with the authors, calling the stories in Finding Freedom “extremely anodyne, the product of creative licence and/or inaccurate” in a bid to distance her from it.
Author Omid Scobie claimed in his witness statement it was “false” to suggest Harry or Meghan collaborated on Finding Freedom.
This story originally appeared on The Sun and has been reproduced here with permission
https://news.google.com/__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?oc=5
2020-10-29 19:21:03Z
52781153346289
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar