A recent development in the legal battle between the Duke of Sussex and News Group Newspapers (NGN) has raised questions about the disappearance of crucial correspondence between the Duke and his ghostwriter, Spare.
The High Court judge overseeing the case has requested the Duke to provide an explanation for the apparent destruction of signal message conversations and draft materials exchanged with Spare before the publication of his memoir.
Mr. Justice Fancourt expressed concerns over the lack of transparency surrounding the erasure of these communications, noting that confidential messages and a significant number of potentially relevant documents shared between the Duke and his ghostwriter were reportedly destroyed between 2021 and 2023, well into the ongoing legal proceedings.
As a result, the judge ruled in favor of NGN’s request for a more extensive search for evidence, leading to the Duke being ordered to cover £60,000 in legal costs for the publisher.
Earlier in the dispute, the Duke faced allegations of deliberately complicating the legal process by withholding information.
NGN’s legal team accused him of reluctance in disclosing nearly 11,000 emails from a now-defunct account, claiming that he was compelled to do so only after much resistance.
Anthony Hudson KC, representing NGN, stated that all documents related to the writing of the Duke’s memoir with Spare were destroyed post-commencement of the legal action, as required by law to ensure transparency in the case.
NGN has further pressed for details regarding the timeline of the Duke’s awareness of the potential lawsuit against the publisher, questioning whether his claim, filed in September 2019, adhered to the stipulated deadlines.
The publisher has sought court intervention to access communications involving the Duke’s current and former legal representatives, a move criticized by the Duke’s legal team as an excessive fishing expedition.
Anthony Hudson highlighted the challenges faced in obtaining necessary disclosures from the Duke, describing the process as straightforward if not for the obstacles created by the claimant.
He emphasized the importance of full disclosure to facilitate a fair legal process, implying that the Duke’s reluctance to comply could prolong the proceedings unnecessarily.
The intricacies of the case continue to unfold, shedding light on the complexities surrounding the missing correspondence and its implications for the ongoing legal battle.
As the legal saga unfolds, the Duke of Sussex finds himself under increasing scrutiny over the handling of crucial communications with his ghostwriter, raising questions about transparency and compliance with legal obligations.