Meghan wins ruling in Mail on Sunday privacy fight

The Duchess of Sussex has won the latest round of her legal battle with the Mail on Sunday’s publisher over a letter she wrote to her father.

The Court of Appeal denied Associated Newspapers’ request for a trial in the privacy and copyright cases. A judge earlier decided in Meghan’s favour following the publication of excerpts from the letter in the newspaper.

Meghan’s claim that the letter she wrote to Thomas Markle in August 2018 was very personal was accepted by the Court of Appeal.

The justices were informed that 585 of the 1,250 words in the letter had been reprinted in the five publications in dispute.

The three judges ruled that the contents of the letter were personal, private, and not subjects of legitimate public interest.

The High Court said in February that the issues in the case were so apparent that a full hearing was unnecessary.

On Thursday, the appeals court justices said it was difficult to understand how the evidence presented at trial would have changed the outcome.

Associated Newspapers’ attorneys argued at a three-day hearing in November that Meghan’s claims of invasion of privacy and copyright should be considered in a full trial.

During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Meghan had given her former communications secretary, Jason Knauf, permission to work with the authors of a book about her and Prince Harry, which she had previously denied.

They also submitted a witness statement from Mr Knauf, who stated that the duchess knew the letter would be released when she wrote it.

Obviously, I’ve written everything with the expectation that it will be leaked, so I’ve been very careful with my wording, but please let me know if anything leaps out to you as a potential liability. Meghan wrote in an early draught of the letter, according to Mr Knauf.

Meghan, however, stated in her testimony that she did not believe it was likely that her father would leak the letter, instead stating that she merely recognised that this was a possibility.