LONDON 鈥� A newspaper invaded the Duchess of Sussex鈥檚 privacy by publishing a personal letter to her estranged father, a British judge ruled Thursday, in a major victory for the royal in her campaign against what she sees as media intrusion.
The former American actress Meghan Markle, 39, sued publisher Associated Newspapers for invasion of privacy and copyright infringement over five February 2019 articles in the Mail on Sunday and on the MailOnline
High Court judge Mark Warby ruled that the publisher had misused the duchess鈥檚 private information and infringed her copyright.
He said the duchess 鈥渉ad a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private. The Mail articles interfered with that reasonable expectation.鈥�
Meghan said she was grateful to the court for holding Associated Newspapers to account 鈥渇or their illegal and dehumanizing practices.鈥�
She said that 鈥渨ith this comprehensive win on both privacy and copyright, we have all won.鈥�
Associated Newspapers said it was 鈥渧ery surprised by today鈥檚 summary judgment and disappointed at being denied the chance to have all the evidence heard and tested in open court at a full trial.鈥�
鈥淲e are carefully considering the judgment鈥檚 contents and will decide in due course whether to lodge an appeal," said the publishing company, which had strongly contested Meghan's claim.
A trial in the case, scheduled for the fall, would have been one of the most high-profile civil legal showdowns in London for years. But at hearings last month, lawyers for the duchess asked for a summary judgment to settle the case without a trial.
In granting the request, the judge said the publisher's disclosures of large chunks of Meghan's private letter to her father, Thomas Markle, 鈥渨ere manifestly excessive and hence unlawful.鈥�
鈥淭here is no prospect that a different judgment would be reached after a trial,鈥� he said.
Meghan鈥檚 lawyers said the 鈥渄eeply personal鈥� five-page letter was intended to be read by her father alone. Her attorney, Justin Rushbrooke, argued in January that the publisher had 鈥渘o real prospect鈥� of winning the case.
鈥淔or these outlets, it鈥檚 a game,鈥� Meghan said in her statement after the ruling. 鈥淔or me and so many others, it鈥檚 real life, real relationships, and very real sadness. The damage they have done and continue to do runs deep.鈥�
But the
Thursday鈥檚 ruling means Meghan has won her case on privacy and copyright infringement grounds, but the judge said a 鈥渓imited trial鈥� should be held to decide the 鈥渕inor鈥� issue of whether Meghan was 鈥渢he sole author鈥� and lone copyright holder of the letter.
The
Meghan, a former star of the American TV legal drama 鈥淪uits,鈥� married Harry, a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II, at Windsor Castle in May 2018. Their son, Archie, was born the following year.
In early 2020, Meghan and Harry announced they were quitting royal duties and moving to North America, citing what they said were the unbearable intrusions and racist attitudes of the British media. They recently bought a house in Santa Barbara, California.
Mark Stephens, a media lawyer with the firm Howard Kennedy in London, cautioned that the legal saga might be far from over.
鈥淭he Mail on Sunday almost have to take it to appeal because the state of privacy laws (are) in a mess in this country, and they need a definitive statement,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o (Meghan) may not be allowed to walk off the pitch. She may have to go through an appeal yet. So this is just round one.鈥�
___
Danica Kirka in London contributed to this story.
Jill Lawless, The Associated Press
