Meghan's lawyers say UK news group has 'no viable defence' in privacy case

LONDON: Lawyers for Meghan Markle on Tuesday sought to avoid a potential court showdown with her estranged father, in a high-profile breach of privacy and copyright case she has brought against a British newspaper group.

The Duchess of Sussex is suing Associated Newspapers Ltd over publication of a letter she wrote to Thomas Markle before her wedding to Prince Harry in May 2018.

Her legal team has previously secured a postponement of a full trial but are now pushing for a judgment to be made in her favour, to prevent a further hearing with witnesses.

If the judge rules in her favour, then the case is over, barring an appeal from the defendants.

But if she loses, it will then go to a full trial later this year, potentially forcing the Markles to face each other in court and face cross-examination.

Meghan's lawyer, Justin Rushbrooke, told the High Court in London the defence offered by the publishers of the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline website had no realistic chance of success.

"We say that, actually, at its heart, it is a very straightforward case about the unlawful publication of a private letter," he said at the remote hearing, which is set to last two days.

The publication of extracts from the letter was a "plain and serious breach of her rights to privacy, and the defendant has no viable defence to it", he added.

Not only did it breach media guidelines the newspaper was signed up to but was a "triple-barrelled invasion" of her legal rights to private correspondence, a private, and family life.

Rushbrooke asked who had the right of control over the contents of the letter, which pleaded with him to stop talking to the media.

"There can only be one answer to the question: it's not the editor of the Mail on Sunday," he said.

That would apply to anyone, even if they were not a duchess, he told judge Mark Warby.

Judge Warby ruled against the royal in a preliminary hearing last year, striking out elements of her claim.

Meghan, an American former television actress, alleges that reporters acted "dishonestly and in bad faith", and "deliberately dug up or stirred conflict" between her and her father.

She claimed they had an "obvious agenda of publishing intrusive or offensive stories" which were "intended to portray her in a false and damaging light".

The newspaper group was allowed to amend its defence against the claim, to allege the couple were willing to give journalists access to the letter when the circumstances suited them.

Associated accuses Meghan of giving the authors of a biography of their lives, "Finding Freedom", details about the letter to portray her version of events in a more favourable light.

The news group also claims she wanted to use the hand-written letter "as part of a media strategy" and discussed it with royal communications officials before it was sent.

But Rushbrooke said the court could be satisfied Meghan had not cooperated with the authors, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, nor had she consented to the publication of the letter in the newspaper.

"It simply doesn't make sense for the claimant to put that sort of letter in the public domain. It would achieve the very opposite of what she's trying to achieve," he added.

He noted the newspaper called the letter at the time a "deeply personal handwritten note". Its shift in position to defend its actions since then was "cynical and unattractive", he added.

Meghan and Harry, who quit frontline royal duties in March last year citing media intrusion, are waging an increasingly public war with some media outlets.

Harry -- grandson of Queen Elizabeth II and son of heir to the throne Prince Charles and the late Diana, princess of Wales -- has separately brought cases against two other British tabloid publishers for alleged phone hacking.

The couple now live with their young son Archie in the United States and have set up a charitable foundation.