Meghan Markle’s High Court privacy hearing delayed at her request
Judge delays Meghan Markle’s privacy court hearing after she applies for postponement on ‘confidential ground’ – despite her father Thomas’ concerns he ‘could die tomorrow’
- Meghan Markle’s High Court privacy claim has been put back until next autumn
- Lawyers for Meghan asked for the delay until October at a private ‘confidentiality ground’ hearing
- Meghan’s applications were heard in private ‘to protect the confidentiality of some of the facts put in evidence’
- Her father Thomas, 76, opposed the delay and said his heart problems mean he may not be around to face her in court in ten months’ time
- Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline for breach of privacy
- It relates to the publication of extracts of a letter she sent Mr Markle after her royal wedding in 2018
- Lawyers for the newspaper did not oppose the adjournment, citing it as a matter for the judge
Meghan Markle’s high-stakes privacy case has been delayed until next October – despite concerns raised by her father that he might die before it takes place.
Thomas Markle revealed that he suffers from heart and lung problems and wants to get the case ‘over with as quickly as possible,’ because he ‘could die tomorrow.’
However, despite her father’s concerns, Meghan’s legal team today won a ten-month adjournment today at a secret hearing at London’s High Court with no further details made public.
Meghan, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline for breach of privacy for publishing extracts of a letter she sent her father Thomas Markle after her royal wedding in 2018.
The case was originally scheduled to be heard next January and was set to last for ten days.
Lawyers for the newspaper did not oppose the adjournment, citing it as a matter for the judge.
Meghan Markle’s privacy case against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Mail On Sunday and MailOnline has been delayed until October after a secret hearing at the High Court
Meghan, 39, is suing for breach of privacy for publishing extracts of a letter she sent her 76-year-old father Thomas Markle (pictured) after her royal wedding in 2018
Mr Markle’s comments were revealed in a statement by Elizabeth Hartley, Group Legal Director of Associated Newspapers, which he has given permission for her to share.
Mr Markle reveals: ‘This case is causing me anxiety and I want to get it over with as quickly as possible. I am 76 years old and as a result of my heart condition and surgery I am on blood thinners which have had an effect on my breathing.’
Mr Markle adds: ‘I am unable to walk far or up many stairs. I can’t take more than 30 or 40 steps without getting winded and needing to slow down until I have caught my breath. I have had a cold for 3 to 4 years which is connected to my heart and lung issues. I am clinically obese, and I have gained more weight during the past months because I have been unable to leave my house to take any exercise. I am pre-diabetic.’
Mr Markle was due to give evidence at the trial initially scheduled for next January in what would have been a ‘face off’ against Meghan, who is also expected to take to the stand.
Mr Markle also revealed that he has not returned to a local hospital near his home because he does not want to know if he has ‘cancer or another serious condition.’
He adds: ‘None of my male relatives have ever lived beyond 80 years of age. I am a realist and I could die tomorrow. The sooner this case takes place the better.’
Meghan’s lawyers were today granted a ten-month delay until October next year at a private ‘confidentiality ground’ hearing held in secret ‘to protect the confidentiality of some of the facts put in evidence’
However Meghan’s legal team won an adjournment today at a ‘confidential ground’ hearing.
On Wednesday a court order revealed by the Press Association said that part of Meghan’s applications today would be heard in private ‘in order to protect the confidentiality of some of the facts put in evidence’. No further details were given.
Mr Justice Warby today said he had considered the request and granted the delay until autumn next year – adding the ‘primary basis’ on which the adjournment was sought was ‘confidential’.
He said: ‘The right decision in all the circumstances is to grant the application to adjourn. ‘That means that the trial date of January 11 2021 will be vacated and the trial will be refixed for a new date in the autumn.’
Meghan lost an application to have claims she co-operated with the authors of the royal biography Finding Freedom thrown out
The adjournment formed part of a flurry of legal moves by Meghan’s lawyers to alter the timetable of the case.
They want a judge to determine her case without having a full trial at all, meaning she would not enter the witness box at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The judge said he will hear the duchess’s summary judgement application to have her case heard without a full trial on January 12.
Meghan lost an application to have claims she co-operated with the authors of the royal biography ‘Finding Freedom’ thrown out.
Last month, she lost a bid to block the book from being relied on by the Mail on Sunday.
The newspaper’s lawyers argued that she co-operated with the authors, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, to set out a version of events that was favourable to her. The duchess denies collaborating with the authors.
Lawyers for the newspaper have claimed at a previous pre-trial hearing that it was ‘difficult to see’ how Meghan could complain about extracts of the letter to her estranged father being published when she and Harry had helped with ‘Finding Freedom,’ which exposed their private thoughts and feelings.
The duchess, who has missed the court’s deadline to serve an updated ‘reply’ to the newspaper’s defence, is also seeking to extend the deadline.
The newspaper’s lawyers accuse Meghan of feeding personal information to Omid Scobie (left) and Carolyn Durand (right), the writers of ‘Finding Freedom,’ to ‘set out her own version of events in a way that is favourable to her
A document submitted to the court by the newspaper’s lawyers reported that she had breached a court order for missing the October 21 deadline. She now has until November 13 to submit her re-amended reply.
The lawyers said: ‘No or no good explanation has been given for this state of affairs.’
Meghan’s lawyers have asked the High Court for disclosure of evidence, such as emails and texts between her and her friends to be delayed until next August.
Meghan’s lawyers have launched a series of a flurry of moves to have the case delayed
Both sides in the case have a duty to disclose relevant documents such as messages and emails to the other side.
Meghan was originally given a deadline of 6 November to provide these.
Central to the case is Meghan’s alleged role in authorising five of her best friends, described as her ‘inner circle’, to give an anonymous interview to US magazine People, in which the letter to her father was mentioned.
Meghan’s lawyers have categorically denied she knew they were giving the magazine the interview.
The newspaper argues she must have known, and wants any messages between Meghan and her friends to be disclosed to the court.
The newspaper also claims she authorised friends to brief the authors of the biography, and is seeking to see any relevant messages the duchess sent or received.
Lawyers for the newspaper said it was ‘difficult to see’ how Meghan could complain about extracts of her letter to her estranged father being published when she and Harry had helped with ‘Finding Freedom,’ which exposed their private thoughts and feelings.
At a preliminary hearing last month, Meghan’s lawyers declared she was prepared to step into the witness box for the trial.
But her new application, if successful, would mean Mr Justice Warby would decide the case without a trial.
Meghan and her estranged father Thomas, who is a witness for the newspaper, were due to face each other in the High Court in January, but this has been postponed until the autumn
He would make up his mind based on written evidence submissions and oral submissions from barristers, without the need for witnesses to take the witness stand.
The newspaper’s lawyers say they do not oppose the adjournment on confidential grounds but rejected any delay to the disclosure of evidence as it could impact their preparations for the case.
The document said: ‘A stay would stop disclosure in its tracks.’
