News

Breaking: 'Strike out' judgment on Meghan Markle case against Mail on Sunday

01/05/2020

Hacked Off

Today’s judgment is in response to an application from lawyers acting for the Mail on Sunday (Associated Newspapers Ltd) to “strike out” (remove) four particulars of claim which support Ms Markle’s claim for misuse of private information. The particulars are “facts of the case” presented by Ms Markle’s team. The application was successful.

In total there are three claims being made by Ms Markle. The strike out action relates only to one of those claims, and at that, not the substantive claim but aggravation.

Hacked Off Policy Director Nathan Sparkes said,

“Today’s judgment makes no difference to Ms Markle’s substantial claim for misuse of private information, with the particulars struck out relating only to aggravation. The judge has been clear they may yet be relied upon, if a case can be made. Regardless, the other two claims remain wholly unaffected. “Harry and Meghan have been dragged through the mud by the Mail, which has waged a campaign of intrusion and abuse against Ms Markle in particular. While Harry and Meghan may be fortunate enough to afford legal action and professional representation, countless members of the public regularly face similar treatment without access to the same resources. Lives have been ruined by inaccurate and bullying reporting with little to no recourse for those affected.  “Until newspapers are independently regulated the press bullying and intimidation suffered by Harry, Meghan, and hundreds of members of the public every year will continue.”

ENDSFor press enquiries contact: sara@hackinginquiry.org 07554 665 940

NOTESHacked Off is the campaign for a free and accountable press, and we work with the victims of press abuse to achieve those aims.

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News