Associated Newspapers is considering Supreme Court appeal of privacy ruling in ...

The publisher of The Mail On Sunday today revealed it is considering an appeal to the Supreme Court after it lost a Court of Appeal challenge against a ruling in favour of the Duchess of Sussex over publication of a personal letter to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.

Meghan, 40, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), also the publisher of MailOnline, over five articles that reproduced parts of her letter to Thomas Markle, 77, in August 2018.

The duchess won her case earlier this year when a High Court judge ruled in her favour without a full trial. However, ANL brought an appeal and, at a three-day hearing in November, argued the case should go to a trial on Meghan's claims against the publisher - including breach of privacy and copyright.

Lawyers representing the publisher said at the earlier hearing that Mr Markle wished to counter points made by friends of Meghan who had given an interview to People magazine in the US.

But, in a ruling today, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean dismissed the publisher's appeal.

A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said: 'We are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom.

'We are very disappointed by the decision of the Court of Appeal. It is our strong view that judgment should be given only on the basis of evidence tested at trial, and not on a summary basis in a heavily contested case, before even disclosure of documents. No evidence has been tested in cross-examination, as it should be, especially when Mr Knauf's evidence raises issues as to the Duchess's credibility.

'After People magazine published an attack on Mr Markle, based on false briefings from the Duchess's friends wrongly describing the letter as a loving letter, it was important to show that the letter was no such thing. Both the letter and People magazine also seriously misrepresented the reasons for Mr Markle's non-attendance at the royal wedding. The articles corrected these matters, and raised other issues of public interest including the reasons for the breakdown in the relationship between the Duchess and her father'.

Andrew Caldecott QC, for the publisher, had told the court the People article accused Mr Markle of having 'cold-shouldered' his daughter in the run up to her wedding to the Duke of Sussex, and of having lied about her shutting him out.

The barrister also said the article implied Mr Markle had given a 'cynical and self-interested response' and ignored her pleas for reconciliation in a 'loving letter' - all while Meghan remained 'dutiful' and supportive of him.

But, dismissing the publisher's appeal today, Sir Geoffrey Vos said: 'It was hard to see what evidence could have been adduced at trial that would have altered the situation. The judge had been in as good a position as any trial judge to look at the article in People magazine, the letter and The Mail On Sunday articles to decide if publication of the contents of the letter was appropriate to rebut the allegations against Mr Markle.

'The judge had correctly decided that, whilst it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter for that purpose, it was not necessary to publish half the contents of the letter as ANL had done.'

In her written evidence, Meghan denied she thought it likely that her father would leak the letter, but 'merely recognised that this was a possibility'.

But Jason Knauf, former communications secretary to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex who now works for Harry's brother William, claimed in a witness statement that Meghan wrote the letter with the understanding that it could be leaked.

He said she sent him an early draft of the letter and had written: 'Obviously everything I have drafted is with the understanding that it could be leaked so I have been meticulous in my word choice, but please do let me know if anything stands out for you as a liability.'

The Court of Appeal also heard that Mr Knauf provided information to the authors of the biography Finding Freedom - Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand - leading to Meghan apologising for misleading the court about whether he had given information.

Today's judgment said: 'This was, at best, an unfortunate lapse of memory on her part'.

It went on: 'The new evidence that had been provided to it had also been widely publicised in the press, nationally and internationally.

'In those circumstances, it decided that the new evidence should be admitted as a matter of pure pragmatism, even though it was more directed to the drafting of the Letter and to what the Duchess knew about the contacts between the Kensington Palace Communications Team and the authors of the book, 'Finding Freedom', than to the issues in the appeal.

'Despite finding the new evidence of little assistance, the Court of Appeal noted that the Duchess had apologised to the court for the pleading served on her behalf that said she did not know if, and to what extent, the Communications Team were involved in providing information for the Book. It had appeared from new evidence from Mr Knauf that he had provided some information to the authors of the Book with the Duchess's knowledge'.