Duchess of Sussex was advised by Palace aide to include details of father's ill-health in letter, court hears

The Duchess of Sussex was advised by a Kensington Palace aide to include a reference to her father’s ill health in a letter she sent him that was later obtained by the Mail on Sunday, the High Court has heard.

However, Jason Knauf, her former communications secretary, has insisted that despite offering Meghan that specific advice, he was not a co-author of the letter and as such, had no wish to become a party to ongoing legal proceedings.

The copyright does not belong to the Crown either, the court heard, as it emerged that lawyers representing the Keeper of the Privy Purse, on behalf of the Queen, had confirmed they “did not consider the Crown to be the copyright owner”.

The case returned to court on Wednesday as both sides continued to thrash out outstanding issues over the newspaper’s publication of the “personal and private” letter the Duchess sent to Thomas Markle, her estranged father.

Associated Newspapers, owner of the Mail on Sunday, questioned why it had taken Mr Knauf so long to declare that he had no specific input in drafting the letter, an issue that has dominated legal argument for several months.

The only outstanding bone of contention on the copyright claim had been whether the Duchess was the sole owner of an electronic draft of the letter, having previously admitted that she sought guidance from others, including Mr Knauf and her husband, Prince Harry.

The Duchess successfully sued Associated for breach of privacy and copyright relating to the publication of five articles featuring extracts of the letter in February 2019.

In January, she won a summary judgment, a legal step negating the need for witness evidence, in relation to the privacy claim and the bulk of the copyright claim.

Lord Justice Warby has now been asked to grant summary judgment in relation to the remaining parts of the copyright claim, as her lawyers argued that Associated’s case questioning the ownership of copyright “has been shown to be completely baseless”.

The Duchess had previously revealed that when drafting the letter, Mr Knauf, a close confidante who is now chief executive of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s Royal Foundation, "provided feedback" in the form of "general ideas" .

Associated suggested that she sought professional advice because she knew it would be made public and that it was intended for use as part of a media strategy to enhance her image.

Lord Justice Warby had acknowledged that the issue was not clear cut and would have to be tested at trial.

However, in a letter dated April 6, Mr Knauf’s solicitors confirmed that he had “never” considered himself an author of the electronic draft, did not own any copyright and had no wish to become a party in legal proceedings.

Ian Mill QC, for the Duchess, said the denial was “emphatic.”

The letter said: “Mr Knauf did not draft, and has never claimed to have drafted, any parts of the electronic draft or the Letter and would never have asserted copyright over any of their content. In our client’s view, it was the Duchess’s letter alone.”

Mr Mill said in written submissions: “This unequivocal statement of Mr Knauf’s position also gives the lie to the defendant’s inferential case, in its defence to both the privacy and copyright claims, that the claimant considered using the letter ‘as part of a media strategy’.”

He told the court that Mr Knauf “suggested that a reference to Mr Markle’s ill-health be included”, which the Duchess did, but that “Mr Knauf did not suggest any specific wording”.

Associated admitted that it was "hamstrung" in proving its point further as it had been given no information about the way the letter was drafted.

Andrew Caldecott QC, for Associated, said it was “a matter of regret” that Mr Knauf’s lawyers had not made his position clear before the summary judgment hearing in January.

When Mr Knauf’s lawyers told Associated that he was not a co-author, it “swiftly recognised the impact of the information” on its copyright defence and therefore indicated that it would not oppose summary judgment, Mr Caldecott added.

Meanwhile, it emerged that the Duchess is seeking the remaining 10 per cent of her costs of her first summary judgment application on the copyright claim.

The court also heard that Associated objects to the Duchess seeking an account of profits for damages relating to the claim for misuse of private information.

Instead, Associated wants to serve a witness statement setting out “general information about how revenues are generated by The Mail on Sunday newspaper and MailOnline” and identifying the heads of costs and outgoings.

The hearing continues.