The duchess is getting “summary judgement”, a legal step which would see those parts of the case solved without a High Court trial.
She is seeking damages for alleged misuse of private details, copyright violation and breach of the Data Protection Act over 5 articles, released in February 2019.
However publisher Associated Newspapers (ANL) say Meghan wrote the letter “with a view to it being revealed publicly at some future point” in order “to defend her against charges of being a unconcerned or unloving child”.
Her attorneys say the publication of the letter was a “major and plain intrusion” of her personal privacy and argue Associated Newspapers has “no prospect” of defending her privacy and copyright claims.
In a witness declaration filed by ANLs attorneys, Mr Markle stated the tip by a “longtime pal” of his child in an interview with People publication that Meghan sent the letter to “fix our relationship” was false.
Meghans legal representatives state the letter wasnt meant to be shared by Thomas Markle
A letter sent out by the Duchess of Sussex to her separated daddy “signalled completion of our relationship”, Thomas Markle has told the High Court.
Meghan Markle, 39, is taking legal action against the publisher of The Mail On Sunday and MailOnline over a series of posts which replicated parts of a handwritten letter sent to her 76-year-old father in August 2018.
More from Duchess Of Sussex
Copies of Finding Freedom, an unofficial biography on Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
Court artist sketch Mr Justice Warby at the Royal Courts of Justice
Mr Markle said in his declaration: “The letter was not an effort at a reconciliation. It was a criticism of me.
” The letter didnt state she enjoyed me. It did not even ask how I was. It showed no issue about the reality I had suffered a cardiovascular disease and asked no questions about my health.
” It in fact signalled completion of our relationship, not a reconciliation.”
ANLs barrister Antony White QC previously argued that Meghans admission she had “a fear” that her letter to her daddy may be obstructed revealed that “she must, at least, have valued that her dad may choose to reveal it”.
He included the “confessed falsity” of the People publication article, which ANL says brought the letter to her daddy into the general public domain, implied Mr Markle “was not just entitled to fix public information about the letter and the reply, it was in the public interest that (he) did so”.
Mr White argued: “Mr Markle has a right to inform his story of his relationship and interactions with his child … no United States court would stop him from doing so, and he could have and could still, whatever the result of this case, speak to the United States media on this subject at any time.”
He likewise referred to the involvement of the Kensington Palace interactions group prior to the letter was sent, stating: “No genuinely personal letter from daughter to father would require any input from the Kensington Palace interactions team.”
He also claimed he had to “defend himself” versus individuals article, which he said had “vilified me by constructing out that I was dishonest, exploitative, publicity-seeking, unconcerned and cold-hearted”.
Justin Rushbrooke QC, representing the duchess, described the hand-written letter as “a heartfelt plea from an anguished child to her daddy”, which was sent to Mr Markle at his house in Mexico through “the plaintiffs accounting professional … to minimise the threat of interception”.
He said the “contents and character of the letter were intrinsically private, personal and sensitive in nature” and that Meghan for that reason “had a reasonable expectation of personal privacy in respect of the contents of the letter”.
Mr Rushbrooke argued that “there is no real prospect of the defendant establishing that the complaintant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the contents of the letter and the defendants contentions to the contrary are entirely fanciful”.
The full trial of the duchesss claim was due to be heard at the High Court this month, but last year the case was adjourned until autumn 2021 for a “confidential” factor.
The remote hearing prior to Mr Justice Warby is due to last two days and it is anticipated he will book his judgment to a later date.