Duke of Sussex’s Privacy Claim Against Daily Mail Publisher Dismissed

In a significant legal setback for Prince Harry, the High Court has dismissed his privacy claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The court deemed the allegations to be brought too late and recommended that they be thrown out entirely.

This ruling has reportedly left Meghan Markle feeling frustrated, as it appears to have stripped Harry of any leverage he might have had in the case.

Sources close to the couple suggest that Meghan is particularly upset about the outcome, especially since evidence from Britney Spears' memoir seemingly undermined Harry's position.

Instead of potentially winning a substantial payout, the Duke of Sussex now faces the possibility of having to pay compensation himself.

This turn of events is viewed as unacceptable by those who know Meghan well, given her reputation for being financially driven.

The situation has escalated tensions between the couple, with insiders alleging that Meghan pressured Harry into making exaggerated claims that have now backfired.

Critics argue that this lawsuit was an attempt to tarnish the royal family's reputation, particularly as King Charles prepares for his coronation in May.

Some speculate that Meghan's motivations may extend beyond just the lawsuit, as she could be looking to exert influence over the royal family in pursuit of financial gains.

On Wednesday morning, the third day of hearings began without Harry, following what was described as a heated argument between the couple.

The court proceedings continued in Court 76 of the Royal Court of Justice in London, where ANL's legal team argued for the dismissal of the case or a judgment in their favor without proceeding to trial.

They labeled Harry's claims as baseless and suggested that the lawsuit was merely a strategic move to avoid a full courtroom battle.

Harry alleges that he has been a victim of illegal information-gathering tactics employed by ANL.

He expressed concerns about the unchecked power and influence of the publisher, claiming they engaged in unlawful practices to obtain personal information.

Alongside Harry, several prominent figures, including actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, as well as ex-Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes, have joined the lawsuit, alleging that private investigators were hired to conduct surveillance and hack into personal communications dating back to 1993.

ANL has countered these allegations, citing a denial from a private investigator, Gavin Burroughs, who claimed he was never commissioned to undertake any unlawful activities for the publisher.

Burroughs asserted that he did not subcontract any such work, challenging the credibility of the claims against ANL.

David Sherborne, representing the plaintiffs, strongly opposed ANL's bid for dismissal, arguing that the evidence presented thus far indicates a compelling case.

He emphasized that the validity of the allegations should be thoroughly examined in a trial setting, rather than being dismissed prematurely.

Sherborne raised questions about how the plaintiffs could uncover the evidence needed for their cases, given that much of it is likely held by ANL.

Harry has previously stated that he was largely unaware of media scrutiny during his younger years, suggesting that the royal family's protective measures concealed information about potential phone hacking incidents.

This revelation adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal battle.

ANL has also pointed out that some of the documents referenced in the case were previously submitted to the Lucent Inquiry under the assumption of confidentiality.

The publisher contends that the plaintiffs are violating publication restrictions by relying on these documents without seeking proper clearance first.

As the legal drama unfolds, the stakes continue to rise for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

With the High Court's dismissal of Harry's claims, the couple faces an uncertain future, both in their legal pursuits and their relationship with the royal family.

The implications of this case extend beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing how the public perceives the couple and their ongoing battles with the media.