Markle Wins First Round

Meghan Markle, aka The Duchess of Sussex, this week succeeded in an application for summary judgment against the Daily Mail newspaper: HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited [2021] EWHC 273 (Ch).

In a case which may well be destined for the Court of Appeal, Warby J found for the claimant on each of the claims of misuse of private information and copyright infringement.

The judge held that the claimant had a reasonable expectation that the contents of the letter would remain private.  The Mail articles interfered with that reasonable expectation.

The only tenable justification for any such interference was to correct some inaccuracies about the letter contained in the earlier People Article.

On an objective review of the articles in the light of the surrounding circumstances, the inescapable conclusion was that, save to a very limited extent, the disclosures made were not a necessary or proportionate means of serving that purpose.

For the most part they did not serve that purpose at all.

Taken as a whole, the disclosures were manifestly excessive and hence unlawful.

There was no prospect that a different judgment would be reached after a trial.

The interference with freedom of expression which those conclusions represented was a necessary and proportionate means of pursing the legitimate aim of protecting the claimant’s privacy.

There were compelling reasons not to allow this aspect of the case to go to trial.  It had already consumed large amounts of resources, both private and public.

The early resolution of liability often benefited both parties, making it easier to compromise what remained.

The claim in privacy was sufficiently separate and distinct from the claim in copyright infringement that summary judgment should be granted, whatever the court’s conclusions on the prospects of success for the copyright claim.

On the matter of copyright, the claimant was entitled to summary judgment on the issues of subsistence and infringement.

She was bound to prove that she was the, or an, owner of the copyright in the literary form of the electronic draft which copyright was infringed by the defendant, and the defences advanced would be bound to fail.

There remained for resolution by way of a trial of the issues (of minor significance in the overall context) as to whether the claimant was the sole author or whether the involvement of a Mr Knauf, whatever it proves to have been, made him the co-author.

If so, the consequences that had on the extent of the infringement of which the claimant may complain, and on the remedies available.

There is to be a further hearing on 2 March 2021 to deal with matters consequential on the judgment, including costs.

A hearing will also need to be fixed for the determination of the remaining issues in the copyright claim and for the determination of what remedies should be granted.