The virtual High Court hearing has now begun in the legal case the Duchess of Sussex versus Mail On Sunday owners Associated Press. I can’t show you a screen shot as much as I can’t take pictures in court.
Anthony White QC representing Associated.
David Sherborne for Meghan

The full Meghan versus Mail on Sunday story is here https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-24/mail-on-sunday-asks-high-court-to-strike-out-parts-of-meghan-s-lawsuit/

The legal team for Mail on Sunday wants to throw out Meghan's claims that the newspaper acted “dishonestly” by deliberately omitting part of her letter, leaving out some words from certain sentences and whole sentences from certain paragraphs.

The Mail on Sunday lawyers also wants to remove Meghan's allegation of "improper conduct". She says the paper tried to "dig and stir up" issues between the Duchess and her father Thomas Markle

Mail on Sunday lawyers: It is "curious" that Meghan claims her father had been "harassed, manipulated and exploited" by the paper when she hasn't spoken to him to ask if he thought the same.
(Meghan's legal team admits she has not spoken to Thomas Markle since the wedding day)

Harry and Meghan will be dialling into this High Court hearing today from Los Angeles - when their lawyer David Sherborne is presenting their case to the judge

To be clear: this is a PRE-trial hearing. Not the trial itself. And no date has yet been set for that.
There must also be disclosure of documents and an exchange of witness statements (presumably from Meghan and her Dad on opposing sides) before the trial can begin

The High Court has just been discussing Meghan's love for avocados
The reason? The Mail on Sunday's legal team says its article on "How Meghan's favourite avocado snack...is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder" should NOT be allowed as part of this privacy case

Meghan's lawyer David Sherborne is now speaking. Which means, somewhere on this Microsoft Teams link, Harry and Meghan are listening in.
It's 04:06am in California

Meghan's legal team is arguing that the press has a right to freedom of expression but the Mail on Sunday was simply "seeking to satisfy the curiosity of its readership in the private life" of Meghan and her Dad.

There is a difference, the High Court judge was told, between "public interest" and the "public being interested in" something. Meghan's team argues the Mail on Sunday was doing the latter - not the former

Meghan's lawyers tell the High Court the Mail on Sunday was also the publication responsible for "harassing" Thomas Markle in the first place and "exposing him to the world as a royal scammer" over those staged paparazzi photographs.

Therefore, Meghan claimed to the High Court that the Mail on Sunday actually "caused the very dispute" between her and her father

Meghan's legal team now explaining its claim the Mail on Sunday "intended to portray her in a false and damaging light" which they say "deeply shocked and upset" Meghan. High Court was told Associated Newspapers had an "obvious agenda" to publish "intrusive or offensive stories"

Mail on Sunday lawyers now claiming they were not "dishonest" in publishing only parts of Meghan's letter to Thomas Markle because the text of their article did talk about a letter "extracts of which" were published in the story.

High Court hearing has now finished. The judge, Mr Justice Warby, is reserving judgement. But it is his "ambition" to make decision "within the week".
This is not the trial - but a pre-trial hearing - on the Mail on Sunday's request to "strike out" some of Meghan's claims.