[bots]

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

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

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

[Jordan.]

The £1 might sound like small change, but Meghan's big ambition was about the principle rather than the pay-off.

Very true, our moral Princess

[bots]

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

[user104658]

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.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Very true, our moral Princess

What morals?

[Oliver_W]

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

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

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

It was meant as an insult…

[Jordan.]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What morals?

[bots]

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

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

What morals?

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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.

[joeysteele]

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.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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

[Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Jordan.

Very true, our moral Princess

True grace

[Beso]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.
Money breeds money...you can never have enough of it when you adapt to a certain life style.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

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.
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.

[arista]

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

how very nice

[jet]

"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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by jet

"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.

£499,999

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

£499,999