London Daily

Focus on the big picture.
Friday, Aug 22, 2025

Meghan Markle agrees to pay more than £67,000 in legal costs after losing the first round of her legal battle against the Mail

Duchess of Sussex lost first round of High Court case against Mail on Sunday * Court documents revealed she has agreed to pay £67,000 towards legal costs * Meghan has asked the High Court to keep names of friends secret * Group briefed People in US about her and contents of letter sent to her father * Thomas Markle spoke to Mail on Sunday and shared the note to 'defend himself'
Associated Newspapers says not naming women defies principle of open justice

Meghan Markle has agreed to pay £67,000 in legal costs after losing the first round of her battle against the Mail on Sunday's publisher.

The duchess is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), publisher of the newspaper and MailOnline, over an article published in February 2019 which reproduced parts of a handwritten letter she sent to her father.

But in May, the High Court's Mr Justice Warby struck out parts of the Meghan's claim, including allegations of 'deliberately stirring up' issues between her and her father.

A written submission from July 22 has since shown that the duchess has agreed to pay in full the publisher’s costs for the strike-out hearing of £67,888.

The hefty bill was revealed as the court heard Meghan believes naming the five female friends who briefed People magazine about her and a letter sent to her father Thomas would be an 'unacceptable price to pay' for pursuing a claim against Associated Newspapers.

The Duchess of Sussex has applied for an order to keep secret the identities of the women, all 'young mothers', at a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Today a skeleton argument presented to the court by Meghan's legal team said: 'To disclose their identities to the public at this stage is an unacceptable price to pay for the right to pursue her claim for invasion of privacy'.

But in an embarrassing moment during the application Meghan's QC Justin Rushbrooke accidentally said the surname of one of the five friends the Duchess of Sussex is seeking to keep anonymous.

Judge Mr Justice Warby, who is expected to rule on the matter in August, immediately directed that the individual's name was not to be reported.

The five women were named as the sources of a People Magazine article in 2019 in legal papers submitted by Meghan to the court earlier this month, although their identities were not made public.

The People article lies at the heart of her privacy and copyright case against the Mail on Sunday because it was the first time the existence of a letter the Duchess had written to her father Thomas was revealed.

In response Antony White, QC for Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, told the court that the principle of open justice in Britain means the five friends should be named. Mr White also said Meghan was apparently 'pleased ... with her friends' intervention' in speaking to People magazine, apart from the reference to the letter she wrote to her estranged father.

He said: 'There is no proper evidential basis (for the application). There is no evidence at all from four of the five friends and the evidence from the fifth (Friend B) has been shown to be unsatisfactory.'

Mr White said: 'There is no risk of reprisal in this case.' The barrister added: 'The information they disclosed to People was information about the claimant, but is not said by her to be private or information that she seeks to protect.'

The Mail On Sunday claims that revelations in People and the misleading impression it gave of the letter gave Thomas Markle the right to publish more of the handwritten note in the newspaper to defend himself after their relationship became hopelessly estranged in the wake of Meghan's marriage to Harry in May 2018.

But Meghan insists that she had no idea any of her friends had spoken to People magazine until after the fact.

All five of the women face the prospect of being hauled to the High Court in London next year to testify in the explosive privacy trial. They could be asked to confirm on oath whether the Duchess had no prior knowledge that they were going to speak to People.

Neither Meghan nor Harry attended the hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London today.

ANL's lawyers are resisting the application to keep the identities of Meghan's friends secret, claiming the duchess's friends brought the letter into the public domain when it was referred to for the first time in the People interview.

In written submissions, Antony White QC, acting for ANL, said: 'The friends are important potential witnesses on a key issue.

'Reporting these matters without referring to names would be a heavy curtailment of the media's and the defendant's entitlement to report this case and the public's right to know about it.

'No friend's oral evidence could be fully and properly reported because full reporting might identify her, especially as there has already been media speculation as to their identities.'

Mr White also said the present order sought by the duchess's lawyers would leave Meghan entitled to disclose the identities to anyone - including the media - who could publish it, while ANL's titles would remain barred from doing so.

Meghan's barrister Justin Rushbrooke QC said Meghan's five friends were entitled to 'a very high level of super-charged right of confidentiality' and confidential journalistic sources.

He claimed 'there is ample evidence before the court' to support his client's application to maintain the anonymity of her five friends.

He said: 'We say at least four of the five sources have no real role at all on the issue raised by the defendant's defence regarding the interview with People magazine in the US.'

He added that one of the five, known only as Friend B, had provided a witness statement to the court in support of the application.

Mr Rushbrooke said Friend B was 'the best possible person' to provide evidence as 'she is the one who actually orchestrated the interviews'.

He told the court: 'These were confidential sources who gave the interviews on condition of anonymity.'

He also said: 'The defendant, in its own coverage - going right back to the first article... that gave rise to this entire litigation - they themselves describe the interviews as anonymous.

'When they regaled their readers with a long and sensational article online within hours of the document being served upon them, they themselves described the interviews as anonymous and the names of the five friends as being put into a confidential court document. But, within hours, we find a volte face.'

Mr Rushbrooke QC then told the court that MailOnline published an article on July 1, the day after the confidential schedule containing her five friends' names was served on MailOnline's publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

Mr Rushbrooke said the article was published just before 5pm, adding: 'If they got it at midnight, journalists were no doubt poring over it with glee in the morning.'

He said it was a 'massively long article which in its own sub-headline records, we say, accurately that ... 'Meghan has now identified the five friends, who spoke anonymously, naming them in confidential papers'.

Mr Rushbrooke said MailOnline published another article on Meghan's application shortly after the first one.

He said: 'Let there be no doubt about it, these two publications are what set off the chain reaction of other publicity given by other organs to the response. It could not possibly be suggested otherwise.'

Mr Rushbrooke added: 'It was the defendant and only the defendant because only the defendant had the document which started the wildfire.'

He continued: 'Other litigants do not make commercial fodder out of the other side's pleadings, but since this one does and since this one has asserted in correspondence that this very document is properly reportable by the media - although they graciously said they won't publish it until the outcome of today's hearing - that is precisely why we say an order ... is necessary'.

Mr Justice Warby said he will give his decision on the duchess's application in writing at a later date.

He said he was 'not going to make any predictions' as to when that would be, but that he would deliver his ruling as soon as he can.

In People's bombshell February 2019 interview, the five women, who were described by the magazine as 'a special sisterhood', lavished praise on Meghan.

One of them – identified in court papers by Meghan as 'Friend A' – told the world about the letter she had posted to her father in October 2018.

Thomas Markle said he spoke to Mail on Sunday afterwards - and shared the note - to 'defend himself' against an inaccurate portrayal of him in People.

Meghan named her five friends to the High Court in a confidential schedule which was kept secret. In a public document she named them as Friends A to E. They cannot be named

She identified Friend A as the one who had told People that the letter had said: 'Dad, I'm so heartbroken. I love you. I have one father. Please stop victimising me through the media so we can repair our relationship.'

Meghan claimed this was an 'unfortunately inaccurate' portrayal of her letter, stressing numerous times that she had known nothing of her closest friends' decision to go public.

She disclosed a list of those she had discussed the 'private' letter with in the papers lodged with the High Court - two of her friends, Prince Harry, her mother Doria Ragland, the press team at Kensington Palace (KP), and her solicitor.

Her lawyers told the High Court she had told 'some of her friends' about the fact she had sent a letter, adding that she had also 'discussed the contents of the letter with her husband, her mother, Friends A and C, the KP Communications Team and her solicitor'.

Meghan insisted more than a dozen times in last week's legal document that she had no prior knowledge of her friends' interview with People.

She added that she was so uninvolved in 'the process of the People article' that she only found out about it on the day it was published'.

Newsletter

Related Articles

0:00
0:00
Close
After 200,000 Orders in 2 Minutes: Xiaomi Accelerates Marketing in Europe
Ukraine Declares De Facto War on Hungary and Slovakia with Terror Drone Strikes on Their Gas Lifeline
Animated K-pop Musical ‘KPop Demon Hunters’ Becomes Netflix’s Most-Watched Original Animated Film
New York Appeals Court Voids Nearly $500 Million Civil Fraud Penalty Against Trump While Upholding Fraud Liability
Elon Musk tweeted, “Europe is dying”
Far-Right Activist Convicted of Incitement Changes Gender and Demands: "Send Me to a Women’s Prison" | The Storm in Germany
Hungary Criticizes Ukraine: "Violating Our Sovereignty"
Will this be the first country to return to negative interest rates?
Child-free hotels spark controversy
North Korea is where this 95-year-old wants to die. South Korea won’t let him go. Is this our ally or a human rights enemy?
Hong Kong Launches Regulatory Regime and Trials for HKD-Backed Stablecoins
China rehearses September 3 Victory Day parade as imagery points to ‘loyal wingman’ FH-97 family presence
Trump Called Viktor Orbán: "Why Are You Using the Veto"
Horror in the Skies: Plane Engine Exploded, Passengers Sent Farewell Messages
MSNBC Rebrands as MS NOW Amid Comcast’s Cable Spin-Off
AI in Policing: Draft One Helps Speed Up Reports but Raises Legal and Ethical Concerns
Shame in Norway: Crown Princess’s Son Accused of Four Rapes
Apple Begins Simultaneous iPhone 17 Production in India and China
A Robot to Give Birth: The Chinese Announcement That Shakes the World
Finnish MP Dies by Suicide in Parliament Building
Outrage in the Tennis World After Jannik Sinner’s Withdrawal Storm
William and Kate Are Moving House – and the New Neighbors Were Evicted
Class Action Lawsuit Against Volkswagen: Steering Wheel Switches Cause Accidents
Taylor Swift on the Way to the Super Bowl? All the Clues Stirring Up Fans
Dogfights in the Skies: Airbus on Track to Overtake Boeing and Claim Aviation Supremacy
Tim Cook Promises an AI Revolution at Apple: "One of the Most Significant Technologies of Our Generation"
Apple Expands Social Media Presence in China With RedNote Account Ahead of iPhone 17 Launch
Are AI Data Centres the Infrastructure of the Future or the Next Crisis?
Cambridge Dictionary Adds 'Skibidi,' 'Delulu,' and 'Tradwife' Amid Surge of Online Slang
Bill Barr Testifies No Evidence Implicated Trump in Epstein Case; DOJ Set to Release Records
Zelenskyy Returns to White House Flanked by European Allies as Trump Pressures Land-Swap Deal with Putin
The CEO Who Replaced 80% of Employees for the AI Revolution: "I Would Do It Again"
Emails Worth Billions: How Airlines Generate Huge Profits
Character.ai Bets on Future of AI Companionship
China Ramps Up Tax Crackdown on Overseas Investments
Japanese Office Furniture Maker Expands into Bomb Shelter Market
Intel Shares Surge on Possible U.S. Government Investment
Hurricane Erin Threatens U.S. East Coast with Dangerous Surf
EU Blocks Trade Statement Over Digital Rule Dispute
EU Sends Record Aid as Spain Battles Wildfires
JPMorgan Plans New Canary Wharf Tower
Zelenskyy and his allies say they will press Trump on security guarantees
Beijing is moving into gold and other assets, diversifying away from the dollar
Escalating Clashes in Serbia as Anti-Government Protests Spread Nationwide
The Drought in Britain and the Strange Request from the Government to Delete Old Emails
Category 5 Hurricane in the Caribbean: 'Catastrophic Storm' with Winds of 255 km/h
"No, Thanks": The Mathematical Genius Who Turned Down 1.5 Billion Dollars from Zuckerberg
The surprising hero, the ugly incident, and the criticism despite victory: "Liverpool’s defense exposed in full"
Digital Humans Move Beyond Sci-Fi: From Virtual DJs to AI Customer Agents
YouTube will start using AI to guess your age. If it’s wrong, you’ll have to prove it
×