Mail on Sunday admits defeat, will pay Duchess of Sussex ‘financial recourse’ – Royal Central

0

Photo by Pete Maclaine / i-Images

The Mail on Sunday admitted defeat after losing her appeal in a copyright lawsuit brought by the Duchess of Sussex three years ago.

The Mail printed a statement at the bottom of its front page claiming it had infringed Meghan’s copyright by publishing a copy of the letter she sent to her father, Thomas Markle. Their 64-word article – also on the Mail’s website – included links to copies of the courts judgment.

The publishers of Mail on Sunday, Associated Newspapers, will also pay “financial recourse” to the Duchess of Sussex. They said in their statement that “financial remedies have been agreed”.

The Mail’s statement said: ‘Following a hearing on January 19 and 20, 2021 and another hearing on May 5, 2021, the Court issued a judgment in favor of the Duchess of Sussex on her violation complaint copyright. The court found Associated Newspapers infringed its copyright by posting extracts from his handwritten letter to his father in The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online. Financial solutions have been agreed.

Meghan called her victory “not just for me, but for anyone who has ever been afraid to stand up for what is right”.

Earlier this month, the Mail on Sunday lost its appeal against a ruling it violated privacy and copyright by publishing excerpts from a letter the Duchess of Sussex sent to her father, Thomas Markle .

Associated Newspapers, owner of The Mail on Sunday, had appealed an earlier court ruling granting summary judgment to the Duchess over her claims. They had wanted the case to be judged.

Three judges of the Court of Appeal ruled that the summary judgment should be upheld. They said: “The Mail on Sunday articles interfered with the Duchess’ reasonable expectation of privacy and was not a justified or proportionate means of correcting inaccuracies regarding the letter.”

They added that it was difficult to see what evidence included in a trial would change that decision and that while the use of a small part of the letter might have been admissible, “it was not necessary to publish half. of the content of the letter “.

Additional reporting by Lydia Starbuck


Source link

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.