The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Meghan Markle receives public apology from 'Daily Mail' after winning court battle against British tabloids

2021-12-27T13:52:02.831Z


An appeals court upholds the conviction for publishing fragments of a personal letter that the Duchess of Sussex sent to her father in 2018, for which "financial solutions have been agreed"


Meghan Markle's court battle against Associated Newspaper, publisher of

The Daily Mail

, has come to an end.

After three years of fighting the tabloids, the Duchess of Sussex has not only emerged victorious, but has also obtained an apology from those who motivated her lawsuit for leaking excerpts from a five-page personal letter that Markle wrote to her father shortly after her wedding to Prince Henry in May 2018.

"The Duchess of Sussex won her copyright infringement legal case against Associated Newspapers for articles published in

The Mail on Sunday

and in Mail Online ”, the newspaper has begun to relate on its cover on Sunday, December 26. After a hearing on January 19 and 20, 2021, and another on May 5, 2021, the Court handed down a judgment in favor of the Duchess of Sussex on her claim for copyright infringement. The Court has found that Associated Newspapers infringed his copyright by publishing excerpts from his handwritten letter to his father. Financial solutions have been agreed ”, the media has indicated in the apology note that has been published on the third page of its paper version, a story with a total of 64 words indicating that they had infringed copyright. They have thus ended their battle, accepting their defeat.

Markle sued Associated Newspapers for five articles reproducing parts of a "personal and private" letter to Thomas Markle. She won her case earlier this year when the superior court judge claimed that the publication of such articles broke the Duchess's privacy. Associated Newspapers argued that the case should have gone to trial, an appeal that was dismissed in early December by appellate court judges Sir Geoffrey Vos, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean. They made the decision that the Duchess had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" regarding the content of the letter. "These contents were personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest," said Vos.

In the content of the letters that have sparked the controversy, the Duchess of Sussex asked her father to stop taking advantage of his situation as a member of the British royal family after it was discovered that he had collaborated with a paparazzi agency to take photos of himself at his home in Mexico, and subsequently allowing

The Daily Mail to

publish personal information about the family: “If you love me, as you tell the press, please stop. Please allow us to live our lives in peace. Stop lying, stop creating so much pain, stop exploiting my relationship with my husband, ”read the text, handwritten by Markle.

It was she, therefore, was the first to publicly celebrate the final decision through a brief statement: "In the almost three years since all this began, I have been patient in the face of deception, intimidation and calculated attacks," he declared. several weeks ago. “Tomorrow the affected person could be you. These harmful practices are not something that happens exceptionally. They are constant mistakes that divide us, and we all deserve better than this, "he added. Associated Newspapers responded at the time, saying the company was "very disappointed" by the ruling, although it has not been able to change its fate. The costs of the damages inflicted on the Duchess had been estimated at 1.5 million pounds before the appeal (approximately 1.78 million euros), but that figure has risen with the appeal, as reported by the British newspaper.

The Guardian

.

Source: elparis

All news articles on 2021-12-27

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-04-15T09:22:24.098Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.