ANL Granted Right to Appeal the Summary Judgement of High Court in Favour of Meghan Markle!

It's normal for them to get appeals. What's abnormal is people who know nothing about the legal system trying to say this is somehow "bad news" for Meghan and Harry. It was expected.

"... the Appeals court is usually loathe"

Oh, dear...

R2 my phone likes Olde Olde English.

Original ANL thread, one of them anyway

Sun article

What ever happened re: the issue that Oprah used doctored headlines in the interview? DM among others objected.

I officially dispute r2's "oh dear" of r1. What's wrong with that sentence? "Loathe to" is correct usage.

R7, “loath” would he correct here. “loathe” is a verb.

Ahhhhhh - thank you, r8. I learned something today.

R1 Not true. The CoA only hear cases that they consider arguable so they evidently feel that this one is. Of course that’s bad news for Markle, moron.

Remember, they are not deciding on the merits, only on whether there should have been a trial - a lower bar.

r1, obviously it's bad news for the Harkles. They scraped by on this one previously only because Jason Knauf was refusing to testify. Perhaps that has changed...

R10 - You're correct, the appeal is to overturn the lower court's judgement, which cut off the possibility of a trial, not to refight the original case. But it's not as low a bar as all that. ANL will have to demonstrate that Warby's judgement contained an error of law. ANL's argument, so far as I understand it, is that after giving ANL permission to expand its defence, the Court indicated that it believed ANL had an arguable case. Then, suddenly, turned around and refused to hear that same defence, instead announcing (and here is where I felt Warby was unwise) that anyone who thought [her] privacy hadn't been breached was being "fanciful". That statement is incongruous with, two months earlier, the same judge allowing ANL to include "Finding Freedom" in its defence.

There was a distinct aroma in the air of "practical considerations" suddenly making a full trial something to be avoided at all costs.

As you say, the CoA doesn't accept such applications just because they've been submitted, but only if it believes the appellant has an argument to make.

And, it also means that the original complainant will be asked to hand over the documents that Meghan's legal team kept stalling at the first court's level. By rights, they should have been held in contempt, but the sudden Summary Judgement ruling let them off for that, as well.

If they try fucking around with the CoA like that, they'll swiftly find themselves in deep legal shit.

And, the success of the appeal application means they didn't get paid the damages, so they are still out the legal fees they paid AND there will be more of same coming their way now.

R11 - I don't think Knauf refused to testify. He submitted a Witness Statement outlining how much he had and had not contributed to the text of Meghan's letter to her father, which was deemed insufficient to expand copyright to him.

The Palace Four, of which Knauf was one, were never called to testify or put on a witness list submitted to the court. He has moved to Australia to be with his husband, who apparently got some sort of great job Down Under, or was transferred there to an important position from his current employer. You don't "refuse to testify" without a very, very good reason. You can be held in contempt of court. If this appeal succeeds and there is a trial, and he's put on the witness list, he'll have to testify.

Knauf is of more interest in the bullying investigation, really.

Its all just too delightful my dears!

YOU'RE MENTALLY ILL OP.!!! DON'T WALK, RUN TO YOUR NEAREST SHRINK!!!

OR WE'LL KILL YOUR CHILDREN!

AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!!!

r15 & r16, Post-partum rage?

Just block the trolls.

Some of you have been following this case more carefully than I have so you might know about this.

Wasn't there something about MM's side claiming that they could not provide emails that had been requested by the court because the emails had been destroyed, but another MM story had been reported where MM was claiming that she "had all the receipts" as proof of some other claim.

I seem to remember comments here wondering if her later comments were a contradiction to what had been reported to the court.

Thank you r13. I didn’t understand that Knauf’s writing contribution or lack of it had to do with expanding the copyright to include him.

From the beginning I thought the copyright issue depended on how much of the letter was quoted. MM owns the copyright but part of the letter could be printed, just not all of it? So how did the MoS lawyers screw it up? Seems like it’s a mathematical formula, 33% of the content can be published or something. Did I get this wrong?

(Not r11)

I'm not sure if there is a formula about how much of such a letter could be used and still claim protection under the Fair Use clause. The MoS did print quite large portions of it. They appear to have been advised that as long as they didn't print all of it or change or edit what they printed, they were on safe ground.

As far as the emails go, I don't remember what was stated by Meghan's side. That is, stated in court papers as opposed to rumoured.

She could have been held in contempt for doing so, and that may be why Summary Judgement to make it all go away was thought, er, prudent.

Despite Warby's occasional concessions to the MoS, it does seem that when it really came DC own to it, Meghan was handled with kid gloves.

I'm still curious as to whether pressure from BP occurred once Meghan mentioned that she had taken advice on the letter from "senior royals", which could only have been Charles and Camilla.

^* down to it

Can we get an edit button one day to combat the fucking autocorrect?

The DM also acknowledged the granting of permission to appeal today. It got overshadowed by the revelations of yet another lie by Harry about being cut off financially in the first quarter by his family (meaning his father).

If by some chance the appeal wins and that Summary Judgement is overturned, it will be a major, major blow for Meghan. It will this time mean a trial with all the shit coming out that she had hoped to ward off with the Summary Judgement. The PEOPLE Five and the Palace Four will again be lawyering up, and if she thought the last month or so was bad, wait till that trial starts.

The date for the appeal to be concluded is July 2022. That, I suppose, gives Meghan time get up the duff again and give herself another potential time out, especially as this time she will be expected to travel to appear in court as the lockdown will be over.

"I know, I know, we were only going to have two for the sake of the planet, but, well, you know how those moments of passion are!"

R24– There’s already talk that she wants to drop the suit and concentrate on her US ventures

R25 She can't now. She could have dropped it when she was the Complainant, but I don't think she can stop the Appeal, because it's the other party who has filed the suit this time.

Her suit already received a judgement. There's no longer anything she can drop. The Appeal is in ANL's ballpark. The time to withdraw the suit was before judgement.

How could she do the suit without dropping her favourable outcome?

If the judgement gets overturned on Appeal, and goes back to the lower court for trial, I suppose she could then withdraw it.

Bit she can't drop what she didn't file.

Besides, there's a quite good chance the verdict won't be overturned. Then she'll be twice vindicated.

But she will have spent a good deal more money that she'd probably rather have spent on other things.

Like more PR staff.

R21, the primary claim in Markle's suit wasn't copyright, it was an "invasion of privacy" claim that would never be recognized under U.S. law. ANL raised a question of fact as to whether Markle had intended the contents of the letter to her father to become public. In the face of that, the judge granted summary judgment. His decision seemed poorly reasoned to me.

I would hope you could appeal a summary judgment for pity's sake.

And why should the Appellee be allowed to offer more evidence at this point? The challenge is to the granting of the summary judgment and not allowing the case to proceed to trial on whatever evidence was before the court at that point. Additional evidence is not for an appellate court, it's for the trial court where it can be presented and challenged properly.

I'm saying all that not really knowing UK law. LOL!

[quote] Besides, there's a quite good chance the verdict won't be overturned. Then she'll be twice vindicated.

There hasn't been a "verdict". The case was essentially dismissed. before trial. It was not allowed to go to trial. No trial, no verdict.

Invasion of privacy? She wrote a private [sic] letter to her father using that clumsy calligraphy instead of normal handwriting. When I saw a photo of an except in the DM, my first thought was, she intended this to be publicized. She wanted her side to be heard and to gain sympathy, without actually having to release the letter herself. Her father was a pawn.

And when HE did not leak it, she had "friends" bring it to People magazine and trash him to provoke him to do so, R30.

"The first amendment is bonkers!" Poor old Harry must have run to a dozen pricey lawyers to try to sue US publications and been told he wasn't going to get rich playing Donald Trump's game.

R29 - Ah, yes - reflexive but incorrect use of term. There was a Judgement, not a verdict.

^ excerpt

Isn’t she suing some other publication? Or it was just a complaint?

The lawyers must love her. They’re making out like bandits in all directions.

Aren’t you tired Miss Hilly?

Only of you, Cinesnatch.

.....