Meghan to receive £1 in damages after privacy case
 

The Duchess of Sussex will receive £1 in damages from Associated Newspapers after the Mail on Sunday was found to have invaded her privacy.

The nominal sum was set out in court documents which formally confirm the newspaper has accepted defeat.

The Mail on Sunday published a handwritten letter that Meghan sent to her father Thomas Markle in 2018.

The media company will also pay an unspecified sum for a separate case of infringing her copyright.

Associated Newspapers previously indicated it was considering a further appeal to the Supreme Court, but the company has now accepted defeat in the long-running case.

Last February, the High Court had ruled against the newspaper group on the issue of privacy and copyright - saying the issues in the case were so clear cut that there was no need for a full hearing.

Associated Newspapers was refused permission to appeal against the decision but went to the Court of Appeal in an attempt to get the original ruling overturned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59879079

--------------------------------

:laugh:

Archwell has raised a mighty 50k in 12 months,...

Very true, our moral Princess :love:

it doesn't just sound like small change, it is small change :laugh:

The money really isn't the point in cases like this. I feel like people obviously know that, but they'll crow anyway, because... well. That's wot we do now'days, innit.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3gYWog...9K6D/giphy.gif

What morals? :laugh:

Offering a pound is a bit of an insult, worse than not giving anything...

It was meant as an insult…:laugh:

she was suing for damages, she won, and the court decided that she was so damaged by the revelations in the newspaper that it warranted her receiving £1

Frivolous law suit is the phrase that comes to my mind

:joker:

I don’t suppose her loss of memory helped…when she dictated the wording “in case it got into the hands of the press” :laugh:

Well we're not people if we're not nitpicking at people 24/7.:laugh:

No that’s not what some of us do.

Two self pitying liars got found out, so we mock them for the Idiots they are.

But the court ruling in their favour and awarding £1 demonstrates that they were in the right and the paper was in the wrong, however there’s no evidence that they were financially disadvantaged by what the paper wrote. That’s the point of the token payment. People are trying to frame it as the court giving some sort of petty “piss take” verdict which is not the case and would be horrifyingly unprofessional and worrying if it was.

But people are like “Ha ha ha £1 the court clearly does not believe them and is mocking them haha cockadoodledoooooo.”

Load of nonsense.

If the court didn’t believe them the court would have ruled against them and not upheld the claim. They wouldn’t have ruled in their favour but only given £1 damages in some sort of playground “psyche!!!” prank for goodness sakes.

People just don’t understand the purpose or significance of the £1 damages so they make up their own (daft) explanation.

A fair bit of selective jibing at this actually.

The article clearly states that the media organisation will further pay an UNSPECIFIED sum to her for infringement of HER copyright.

I'd like to know what that sum is!!

For Meghan Markle, she has fought and won this, she hardly needs finances, the victory is and will remain hers, no matter how that upsets those who maybe hoped she'd be unsuccessful.

Some of us no full well what’s going on.

True grace :love:

I would also like to know how much that payment is...

I'm assuming its ginaormius and would make her look like a money hungry bitch, so she has stopped it becoming public..the 1 pound however, makes her look hard done by, so she has no problems with it being revealed.

She won the case....good for her. However she was actually the biggest loser because once again the case exploited her ability to lie and manipulate the truth once again....and please dont tell me that she doesn't need the money because only a year ago they were moaning about being cut off financially from Prince Charles. :laugh:
Money breeds money...you can never have enough of it when you adapt to a certain life style.

If as you say 'I' haven't to say, she doesn't need finances, then please follow your own advice and not then to myself present as full knowledge your view in you saying she does.
I don't care a jot as to monies involved.

She won the case, that was her main aim.
That has been achieved.
I will always applaud victories against any gutter press.
So well done to her in my view for never backing down on this and ALSO deemed in law to be right.

Meg
[will receive £1 in damages from Associated Newspapers]

how very nice

"She just wanted to establish a principle and get her legal costs paid, although she may well still be a half a million pounds out of pocket as a result of this process."
..........

Being exposed as the lying schemer she is cost her around half a million. Happy days. :laugh:

£499,999 :laugh:

:laugh:

She won the case only because the MOS published too much of the letter instead of only parts relevant to her father wanting to answer the accusations made against him.
I personally couldn’t applaud anyone who schemed to allow 4 of her friends to reveal parts of the letter to the press which painted her father in a bad light and which were shown to be lies/out of context in subsequent emails revealed in court.

I personally couldn’t applaud anyone who withheld important documents from the court; therefore was in contempt of court, and outright lied about participation in the book, never mind all the other lies, manipulations and chaos she has caused previously.
As the present law dictates, she won the case on a technicality, but I certainly wouldn’t be applauding someone so devious as to use the press herself when it suits her to lie to the public to get their misplaced sympathies by deception.
But each to their own of course.

Good post jet..very true.

What????

I merely commented on your comment "she hardly needs the money" and I beg to differ....

:clap2:

Hasn't Harry been £1-ing her every night anyway?:hehe:

Sexual innuendos aside, why did the Daily Fail fabricate details in this case? If you don't want controversy then at least report the facts.:laugh:

Tbh Meghan's gonna get abuse no matter what the sum ends up being.

Facts in the Daily Mail.
I don't think we'll ever see that day Mock.:joker:

It's just about taken over from the Sun as the truly worst of gutter trash as to publications.

I won't insult the word ' news' as to term it a (news) paper.
It should be only on any fiction stands in retail outlets in my view.

I agree with all that you say here Joey.

I'm sure that at one time many years ago that DM had good intentions, but sadly has become corrupted by the Murdoch era.

No mock, Meghan pegs Harry every night to the sound of rule Britannia

Well we can try doing a Rule Britannia remix with their groaning added in.:joker:

Mock, could you explain what you mean by the Mail fabricating details in the court case? Have you a link that refers to this? :conf:

It's actually 37k LT.
They are too greedy lining their own pockets to care about promoting their charity....and Harry's Travalyst had made the Princely sum of 12k.

How much have you raised for charity in the last 12 months? I'm assuming a lot.

:facepalm:

Those amounts are pathetic for a high profile couple who have been busy raising many many millions in deals all for themselves.

Interesting piece in the DM - must be all lies of course....:laugh:

[Financial details of the Sussexes' charities and companies in the US are far more scant, thanks to their decision to incorporate their organizations in Delaware, notorious for its lack of corporate transparency.

Anti-corruption organization Transparency International has slammed the state as 'a place where extreme corporate secrecy enables corrupt people, shady companies, drug traffickers, embezzlers and fraudsters to cover their tracks when shifting dirty money from one place to another,' – although law-abiding businesses also incorporate there.
Though both Archewell's HQ and the couple's home being in California, all their charities and associated companies are incorporated in Delaware.
Even a company set up to hold the Archewell trademark was founded in Delaware – and appears to have not yet filed documents with the California Secretary of State despite being based in Beverly Hills.]