Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

PH litigation against Mirror group settled

128 replies

Mumsnut · 09/02/2024 13:15

Lots more damages, and I think they have picked up his costs

OP posts:
goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 12:21

That Sherbourne bloke isn't very KC looking or sounding is he? More akin to a celeb hairdresser

Janiie I see that someone has already corrected you on the KC point but what an incredibly stupid thing to say. Just pointless.

tothelefttotheleft · 10/02/2024 12:58

Janiie · 09/02/2024 15:33

I'm not a Morgan fan but love his response, 'I totally agree with Harry that intrusion into the royal family's private life for financial gain is wrong..and I hope he stops doing it'

Grin

He never takes responsibility for his actions.

I thought that response was pathetic.

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 13:33

TallerSally · 10/02/2024 12:03

If counsel didn’t manage to land a single blow on Harry how did he lose 17 out of 33 claims?

Your post lacks balance. Yes H won 15 out of 33 claims of the other 115 claims it could be assumed a similar ratio so he is clearly due compensation.

Reminder @Propertylover that the way the 33 cases were selected was Harry‘s team selected half (so, exactly 16.5 cases) and MGN the other half. It stands to reason that Harry selected his strongest and MGN his weakest.

It is therefore illogical to infer that a roughly 50% ratio similarly applies to the outstanding cases. One simply does not know. For all we know, ALL the remaining cases could also all have been strong cases likely to go Harry’s way.

And the fact that MGN settled also suggests that a 50% ratio is highly unlikely.

As to your other point about MGN barristers failing to land a killer blow during cross-X and Harry losing half his cases, not sure we’re talking about the same thing here.

A court case is about more than just a witness’ cross-X. Harry carried his with flying colours, particularly given how low expectations of his detractors were.

Listening to some of them, Harry’s an infant nitwit hardly able to string 5 words together into a sentence, let alone someone able to stand his ground through 8hrs of supposed ‘Rottweiler’ cross-X in High Court…

I was aware how the 33 cases were selected. At least one of Harry’s strongest cases was not successful. I agree neither of us know.

WRT evidence no witness answers all questions perfectly. I had no doubt Harry would be a credible witness but like all witnesses he is not infallible and emotion and memory come into play. So to say council didn’t land a single blow in 8 hours is unrealistic.

TallerSally · 10/02/2024 13:42

So to say council didn’t land a single blow in 8 hours is unrealistic.

Thanks, @Propertylover , but I didn’t say that.

‘killer’ is the operative word (and for the avoidance of doubt, I don’t mean this literally)

If MGN had landed even one such blow we would have heard about it, complete with screeching headlines about Harry being such a bird-brained petulant numbskull!!! bla bla bla.

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 13:44

@TallerSally in this type of case how realistic is it for anyone on either side to land a killer blow?

What was Harry’s councils Killer blow?

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:45

David Sherborne - Harry's counsel - landed successive killer blows in the Wagatha Christie case.

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:46

He also landed seriously hefty blows in Harry's case which is why Morgan is so pissed off.

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:47

You're welcome to read the accounts of both cases yourself. Please don't ask me for a 'link'.

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 13:50

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:45

David Sherborne - Harry's counsel - landed successive killer blows in the Wagatha Christie case.

I’m not surprised, Coleen Rooney was brilliant and made his job a lot easier.

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 13:54

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:46

He also landed seriously hefty blows in Harry's case which is why Morgan is so pissed off.

We were talking about Andrew Green KC who cross examined Harry - are you saying he also landed Killer blows to Harry’s case?

Viviennemary · 10/02/2024 13:56

Janiie · 09/02/2024 15:33

I'm not a Morgan fan but love his response, 'I totally agree with Harry that intrusion into the royal family's private life for financial gain is wrong..and I hope he stops doing it'

Grin

That was quite clever. I bet it gave Camiilla a laugh. I heard she has a wicked sense of humour.

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:58

We were talking about Andrew Green KC who cross examined Harry - are you saying he also landed Killer blows to Harry’s case?

Propertylover you asked in terms how realistic it was to expect 'killer blows' in libel trials. My response was completely on point.

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 13:59

in this type of case how realistic is it for anyone on either side to land a killer blow?

There you go - your post today at 13.44.

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 14:01

@goodbyestranger thank you for proving my point to @TallerSally.

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 14:04

I have done nothing of the sort. It's possible to land serious blows. MGN's counsel failed to do so.

I will take the credit for correcting your irritating spelling of counsel however.

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 14:05

😂

Ribbonss · 10/02/2024 14:10

Well done H&M. I hope some of the cretinous journalists responsible for all the hate get held to account for their actions.

TallerSally · 10/02/2024 14:24

goodbyestranger · 10/02/2024 14:04

I have done nothing of the sort. It's possible to land serious blows. MGN's counsel failed to do so.

I will take the credit for correcting your irritating spelling of counsel however.

😂

Propertylover · 10/02/2024 14:25

Ribbonss · 10/02/2024 14:10

Well done H&M. I hope some of the cretinous journalists responsible for all the hate get held to account for their actions.

Chelsea Davy also deserves a mention as she was clearly a victim.

I want Levinson 2 to go ahead. The media were let of far to lightly after all this came to light.

TallerSally · 10/02/2024 14:31

Viviennemary · 10/02/2024 13:56

That was quite clever. I bet it gave Camiilla a laugh. I heard she has a wicked sense of humour.

Pasty Piers’ supposed Harry put-down, which I have no doubt he spent weeks slaving over, was not only feeble, it was also logically flawed. How can Harry as a member of the royal family, violate his own privacy?

Surely if he’s just telling his own family’s story, he’s not violating his own family’s privacy, duh?

But I know this topic gets a lot of people hyperventilating, so deep breaths y’all!

goldierocks · 10/02/2024 14:31

The judge (Mr Justice Fancourt) was quite scathing about both sides in his judgment. It's available to download in full from the Judiciary website.

About Turner:
"I have found that Mr Turner’s claim was significantly exaggerated and unrealistic in relation to many articles."

"The opportunity was not taken to drop hopeless allegations."

"There was a lack of realism shown in the articles that were pursued even in closing submissions at trial."

About Sanderson:
"In my view, there is considerable force in MGN’s submission that the conduct of Ms Sanderson’s claim was so unreasonable that the court should lay down a marker for the consequences of misleading and exaggerated claims being brought and an unreasonable attitude to settlement then preventing their early and fair resolution."

"The individual costs of Ms Sanderson’s claim have been significantly increased by the exaggeration of her claim and failure to engage in attempts to resolve it outside court."

General Comments
"The costs on both sides have been significantly increased because of MGN’s attempts to conceal the truth, in particular the extent of the unlawful and illegal activity."

"I am concerned about the way that the claims of claimants like Ms Sanderson and Mr Turner are being conducted. The pleadings and witness statements often appear to say what is needed to advance the claim, rather than what the claimant or witness can properly recall; the claim is maximised without apparent regard to whether it is realistic; and there is no proper engagement in attempts to resolve the claim without a full trial."

"...each side has conducted this litigation in an extreme and confrontational way, pushing everything to the limits and sometimes exceeding them. It is that conduct on both sides that is reflected in the orders that I will make."

The Duke of Sussex and others -v- MGN Limited - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch)Case No: HC-2000-000003 In the High Court of JusticeBusiness and Property Courts of England and WalesBusiness List (ChD) 9 February 2024 Before: Mr Justice Fancourt Between: The Duke of Sussex Nikki Sanderso...

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/the-duke-of-sussex-and-others-v-mgn-limited-2/

yesmen · 10/02/2024 14:36

Janiie · 10/02/2024 11:02

Maybe Good King Harold will share his winnings? It'd be the right thing to do surely.

Good morning Prince William!

wildernesssw · 10/02/2024 14:45

Of course one member of a family can violate the privacy of other members of the family! Each individual has their own right to privacy.

Presumably Meghan's father and sister are justified in selling her private information to the media on the grounds they are family?

wildernesssw · 10/02/2024 14:46

I mean, Piers Morgan is scum, and can justifiably be criticised on any number of grounds!

But it is bizarre to claim that Harry can't violate his family's privacy because he is a member of that family...

Janiie · 10/02/2024 14:53

wildernesssw · 10/02/2024 14:46

I mean, Piers Morgan is scum, and can justifiably be criticised on any number of grounds!

But it is bizarre to claim that Harry can't violate his family's privacy because he is a member of that family...

Yep. Bit like saying Markle senior couldn't violate his daughter's privacy because she's family Confused.