Morning Ladies it was Mrs Aunties Birthday yesterday and Gin might have been taken so be gentle.
I am a little surprised that my old friend Mark Stephens has been spouting excitedly about this matter. Mark, the media's goto Entertainment Lawyer (because, well, he looks like one) has lost his touch recently. He was involved in another, in many ways, comparable horlicks with that British diver described by the lovely Elon Musk as a "pweirdo guy". I dont know what pweirdo Guy got up to in Thailand, but god did he ever get fucked over. Frankly he would have had a good case here - just not, alas, in Elon's Home State. American jurisdictions are so sophisticated.
There was a lesson in that case, now what was it? Ah yes, thats it: dont sue billionairres because you think they'll pay you off, because if there is anything at all legally wrong with your case they will leave you humiliated and penniless; and they dont give a duck what you or anyone else thinks about them, or how much it costs them. Its a matter of survival for their wealth and sometimes they just do it for shits and giggles.
Anyway the bottom line, in what is a delicious Judgment (one for the connoisseur of the slowly inserted eviscerating tool), is that Skidmarks Boys (I guess shes the type who cant stand actual powerful legal women) tried to make the case about the "values" of the Daily Mail. For some bizarre reason, betting the courts would allow themselves (in the narrow, nerdy and specialised fields of Privacy Intrusion and Copyright) to be turned into a second Leverson enquiry. I can imagine the excited scenes in some boardroom full of tit Art and biscuits (with Harry in a corner wondering if theyre at the Accountants again) whilst Megs is sold the dream of becoming the peoples champion against the evil press who killed the woman she has been necro-stalking. Oh dear....very very big mistake.
So the Claim says that the Mail acquired her letter and published parts of it misleadingly in breach of her copyright and privacy, not as a newspaper releasing information in the public interest but BECAUSE: (a) they were engaged in a Campaign to destroy or damage her (for some unspecified reason "Is it becoz I is black?"); (b) in pursuit of which they had deliberately "stirred up" the problem between her and Daddy in the first place; and (c) they had acted throughout dishonestly and maliciously.
The lawyers seem to have forgotten (or more likely they just thought it would be a smash and grab as Skids was at the time beloved by us grateful peasants as a touch of Holywood hooker glamour in our mud stained lives) that its not good enough simply to claim things, you also have to indicate what evidence or legal arguments you might be going to rely on to prove them or what are the defendants supposed to be defending? You cant disprove a general allegation that you're a bit of a bleep - you need specific, teapot throwing bridesmaid humiliating, detail.
The response of Megatrons lawyers to having this pointed out to them before it got to the Application was a small masterpiece of deluded snotty arrogance and clearly got up the Judges nose as he takes Sherbourne to the woodshed. Ruling unappeallably, that in respect of all 3 arguments set out above they had either failed to make out proper legal claims; or failed to indicate just what facts and matters they claimed demonstrated them; and crucially that these mistakes were so fundamental that they couldnt be put right by simply amending the Claim and must be struck out. Elementary legal errors in the Skegness County Court.
Now the Mail still have the basic problem of explaining why publishing Megs's weirdo Magna Carta wasnt actionable of itself. On its face its a private document and no-one else is mad enough to (admit to) having written it BUT without all these aggravating factors its not actually worth that much in damages and anyway it had already been released by the 5 stooges; and crucially Daddy to whom it was sent (and could thus waive any confidentiality or copyright of Megans and have it published) had co-operated with the article and thus it was not a breach of her rights.
The judge has said, as they do after theyve left you bleeding to death, that you can always staunch the wounds (difficult if its your head theyve lopped off) put your case properly and have another go - but the question is can she? You need brains, grit and money not built in kneepads to win against utter bastards.
Have a nice day Im off out with the dog..... what I think she's fucked. Her lawyers wil have known after the hearing (when he gave them such a hard time and said theyd have judgment the legal equivalent of straight away) that they'd gone down with all hands; and in the circumstances their response is feeble. I imagine theyve spent the intervening 7 days preparing the client "No dont get your hopes too high we always said this was a uniquely difficult case.... The judges family owned sugar plantations.... Hows loveable scamp Harry?"
My bet is she will at some suitable point in the news cycle discontinue blaming the evil Brits with our law and slavery and racism - and then lets see who, if anyone, pays up.
www.independent.ie
.) Nor would a paper dox a number of people over a 
She reminds me of the young Queen Elizabeth
for yesterday.
)