London’s High Court ruled that Prince Harry cannot amend his lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s British tabloid newspapers to include allegations involving his wife, Meghan. The court also decided that Harry and others cannot pursue claims against Murdoch himself.
Background of the Lawsuit
Prince Harry, along with more than 40 others, is suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) over accusations of unlawful activities by journalists and private investigators for the Sun and the now-defunct News of the World. These alleged activities occurred from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s.
Attempts to Amend the Lawsuit
In March, Prince Harry sought to amend his lawsuit to add new allegations. He claimed that the Sun ordered private investigators to target Meghan, his then-girlfriend, in 2016. However, Judge Timothy Fancourt denied permission to extend the timeframe of Harry’s claim and rejected the inclusion of allegations involving his late mother, Princess Diana, dating back to 1994 and 1995.
Rejection of Claims Against Murdoch
The judge also rejected an application to include allegations that Rupert Murdoch gave “knowingly false” evidence about his knowledge of phone-hacking and other unlawful acts, and was personally involved in a cover-up.
Read More: Singaporean plane hit by turbulence during flight: One killed and 13 injured
Allowed Amendments
However, Harry was permitted to alter his case to include allegations that the papers had bugged his landline phones. Additionally, the judge allowed the claimants to include accusations against more journalists and private investigators and to bring more details of alleged lies by NGN to a public inquiry.
Court’s Balance on Amendments
Judge Fancourt noted that both sides had won about half of the disputed amendments, although NGN had succeeded on more significant issues, such as excluding Murdoch personally from the matter. He criticized the claimants for adding excessive details to their case, which he said were more for the benefit of journalists seeking a good storyline rather than adding weight to the evidence.
Reactions from Both Sides
A spokesperson for NGN stated that the court had “thoroughly vindicated NGN’s position.” Meanwhile, the claimants expressed satisfaction that the judge allowed them to amend their case on “several significant issues,” such as allegations about the deliberate destruction of evidence.
