Such requirements have been enshrined in the procedural rules applicable to both the English and Hong Kong courts. In cases of fraud, this burden is greater. Though the case ostensibly concerns privacy law, it should serve as a useful reminder to all commercial litigants of the requirements for pleadings to be adequately particularised and relevant to the cause of action.It was these allegations that the Court struck out on various bases, including that they were inadequately particularised, irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action, and would have required a disproportionate amount of time and effort to be disposed of at trial. Ms Markle had, however, also made various allegations of dishonesty and other misconduct. The claim is centered on three underlying causes of action: misuse of private information, breach of duty under the General Data Protection Regulation, and copyright infringement.The claim is brought by Meghan Markle against the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and operator of the Mail Online website in relation to a number of articles commenting on a “private and confidential letter” sent by the claimant to her estranged father. In May 2020, judgment was handed down by the English High Court in an application for strike out made by the defendants in the case of HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Limited EWHC 1058 (Ch).In this update, Debevoise & Plimpton looks at some of the lessons that can be learnt by commercial litigants from the English High Court’s recent decision to strike out parts of the claim. Meghan Markle’s legal battle against the Daily Mail has been widely publicised.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |