MEGHAN Markle will face another court hearing to decide how much money she will receive in her "torturous" privacy battle.

The Duchess of Sussex, 39, won her privacy row against the Mail on Sunday in February after it published extracts of a letter she wrote her dad Thomas Markle.

? Read our Meghan and Harry live blog for the latest updates

She claimed the articles in February 2019 misused her private information, infringed her copyright and breached the Data Protection Act.

The paper had suggested that she may not have been the only copyright owner of the letter.

But this was settled in the High Court earlier this month as Meghan won the final part of her copyright claim.

In a judgment handed down today, Lord Justice Warby pencilled in a five-day hearing in October to decide costs as the "torturous" legal battle rumbles on.

He said Associated Newspapers Ltd must provide information about "what revenues it generates (and) what expenses it incurs and how" ahead of the hearing.

It will also deal with an "account of profits" the publisher made as a result of infringing Meghan's copyright.

The judge also said Meghan's former aide's "unequivocal" denial" he helped draft the letter scuppered the newspaper's chance of winning.

ANL's lawyers argued Jason Knauf was the co-author of the letter, which meant it would have belonged to the Crown and wouldn't be Meghan's copyright.

But the court was told the aide "emphatically" denied co-writing the letter, with his lawyers saying "it was the duchess's letter alone".

And Lord Justice Warby today said Mr Knuaf's position was "unequivocal and definitive, not uncertain or provisional".

He added: "I find that there is no longer any realistic prospect that the claimant would fail to prove her full case on the issue of liability at a trial.

"She would be bound to establish that she was the sole author of, and exclusive owner of copyright in, the electronic draft (of the letter).

"There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, for this issue to go to trial."

After the latest hearing this month, it emerged Mr Knauf said she was protected "extensively" by the Palace despite her bombshell Oprah Winfrey claims.

The former actress repeatedly slammed Palace aides in the explosive tell-all chat – claiming they "failed to protect her".

She also sensationally said they were "not willing to tell the truth to protect herself and Prince Harry".

But Mr Knauf, who today stepped down as CEO from Kate and William's charity foundation, appeared to reject her claims in official court documents.

In a letter to the High Court, lawyers representing the Crown claim he led "extensive efforts" to protect Meghan's privacy and reputation.

The aide, who now works for Prince William and Kate Middleton, also made "significant efforts over many months" to protect Thomas Markle, it was said.

The documents say this was carried out "in addition to the steps that were regularly taken to object to coverage of the Duchess herself, where this was perceived to be unfair or untrue".

In March, Meghan's lawyers demanded Associated Newspapers Ltd pay her £1.5million legal fees.

But Lord Justice Warby ordered the Mail on Sunday to pay £450,000 in costs, with the possibility of more to be paid in the future.

He ruled in February the publication of Meghan's letter to her father was "manifestly excessive and hence unlawful".

The judge said: "It was, in short, a personal and private letter.

"The majority of what was published was about the claimant's own behaviour, her feelings of anguish about her father's behaviour, as she saw it, and the resulting rift between them.

"These are inherently private and personal matters."

Associated Newspapers Ltd were ordered to print a a statement on the front page of The Mail On Sunday and a notice on page three of the paper stating it "infringed her copyright" by publishing parts of the letter.

But a statement regarding Meghan's victory in her copyright claim has been put on hold while the publisher seeks permission to appeal.

At the original hearing, the court was told Meghan sent the letter to her estranged dad, 76, in August 2018.

She was said to have felt forced to write the "painful" letter after they reached "breaking point".

And her lawyer Justin Rushbrooke QC described the 1,250-word letter as "a heartfelt plea from an anguished daughter to her father".

Releasing a statement after her victory, the duchess said: "For today, with this comprehensive win on both privacy and copyright, we have all won."

A spokesperson for ANL said they were "very surprised" by the ruling.

Source: Read Full Article