Meghan Markle wins copyright claim against Mail on Sunday owners over publication of ‘private letter’

Newspaper group’s defence had been ‘shown to be completely baseless’, lawyers for duchess tell the court

Meghan Markle has won her remaining copyright claim against the owners of the Mail on Sunday after they published a personal letter she wrote to her estranged father.

The duchess had already won the majority of her claim against Associated Newspapers, which also owns the MailOnline website, relating to five 2019 articles that published parts of a letter show wrote to her father after her 2018 wedding to Prince Harry.

A High Court Judge ruled in her favour in February after deciding the publication of large parts of the handwritten letter was “manifestly excessive” and unlawful. They also granted Meghan’s request for a summary judgment to settle the case - meaning she won that part of the case without having to go to trial.

However the court did not decide whether Meghan was the “sole author” and copyright holder of the letter at the time.

But on Wednesday, the judge sided with Meghan’s lawyers regarding the remaining parts of their copyright claim, after lawyers representing the Queen refuted the claim made by the defence that the letter’s copyright belonged to the Crown.

The newspaper group had initially said it thought the letter had been co-authored by Jason Knauf, the duke and duchesses’ former communications secretary, and thus was the property of the royal household.

The duchess’ lawyer Ian Mill told the court that lawyers for Mr Knauf had confirmed he did not write the letter, and that the defence’s case had “been shown to be completely baseless.”

In his ruling in February, judge Mark Warby said the public disclosure of Meghan’s “personal and private letter” to her father Thomas Markle was “manifestly excessive and hence unlawful”.

“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,” he said. “These are inherently private and personal matters.”

Gerard Cukier, a litigation partner at Keystone Law who were uninvolved in the case, said it would be difficult for the newspaper group to challenge the strength of the judgements.

It comes after the Duchess, who stepped away from royal life along with Prince Harry last year, had her initial claims against the newspaper group dismissed by a judge.

“Having started the fight against the Mail on Sunday badly and losing the first couple of rounds, the Duchess of Sussex has come back swinging. She has won every subsequent court application and finished with a complete knockout of the Mail on Sunday’s case,” he said.

“While we are still waiting to hear whether Associated Newspapers are appealing to the Court of Appeal, successfully challenging Lord Justice Warby’s strong judgments will be difficult.”

Additional reporting by AP

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in