The names of five of Meghan's friends who spoke to People magazine will now remain secret. Photo / Getty Images
Meghan Markle and a British newspaper have been criticised by a High Court judge for waging "tit-for-tat" publicity campaigns as she secured a ruling keeping her friends' identities secret.
Mr Justice Warby, delivering his ruling at the High Court in London, said both camps in the Duchess of Sussex and Associated Newspapers legal battle had created a "frenzy of publicity" and a "febrile atmosphere" capable of undermining fairness and transparency.
The duchess, 39, is suing Associated Newspapers, the owner of the Mail on Sunday, the Daily Mail and MailOnline, over publication of a story featuring extracts of a "private and confidential" letter she sent her 76-year-old father, Thomas Markle, in 2018.
The newspaper group had fought for the names of the friends to be made public.
The duchess is claiming damages because her lawyers say the article, from February last year, is a breach of privacy and copyright.
Earlier, her five "close friends" had given anonymous interviews to People magazine in America in what was seen as an account that sided with her.
The judge said in a 20-page ruling that "for the time being at least" the five friends should have their identities protected "in the interests of the administration of justice". He stressed that while their anonymity remained in place "at this stage", that "may fade or even evaporate if and when there is a trial at which one or more of the sources gives evidence".
Welcoming the ruling, a spokesman for Meghan said: "The duchess felt it was necessary to take this step to try and protect her friends – as any of us would – and we're glad this was clear. We are happy the judge has agreed to protect these five individuals."
However, in the ruling Mr Justice Warby said it was "clear that neither side has, so far, been willing to confine the presentation of its case to the courtroom".
He said: "Both sides have demonstrated an eagerness to play out the merits of their dispute in public, outside the courtroom and primarily in media reports.
"This approach to litigation has little to do with enabling public scrutiny of the legal process or enhancing the due administration of justice. Indeed, in some respects it tends to impede both fairness and transparency."
The ruling catalogued examples of how stories from either side had appeared in newspapers, magazines and on social media, leading to "tit-for-tat criticisms" of one another for publicising details and even legal documents not yet submitted to the court.
"Each side has overstated its case about the conduct of the other," the judge said.
He added that there was evidence to support the newspaper's claims that the duchess' team had been "energetically briefing the media about these proceedings from the outset".
He noted how the title page of Meghan's witness statement was posted on a Twitter account belonging to Omid Scobie, one of the authors of the biography Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Family.
That document was "accompanied by a quotation attributed to 'a close source', criticising the Mail for wishing to 'target five innocent women through the pages of its website'."
Mr Justice Warby said it seemed "very likely" that he had been "provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant [Meghan]".
The judge highlighted how a press officer at the Duke and Duchess' foundation had sent journalists a "crib sheet" and "legal filing" of the duchess' reply to court papers.
Meanwhile, the ruling suggests that, in July this year, a lawyer acting for Associated Newspapers "immediately" forwarded an email received from Meghan's lawyers to the newspaper.
That document included details of the names of the five women – Meghan's "inner circle" – as well as the suggestion the taxpayers' contribution to crowd security when Prince Harry married the American actress in 2018 "was far outweighed by the tourism revenue of one billion pounds sterling generated from the Royal wedding".
The next day, MailOnline reported how the Duchess of Sussex had identified "five close friends" who gave an interview to People magazine. Later that day, it ran a "lengthy story" with the headline: "Meghan Markle claims Britain made a profit out of her £32 million wedding to Prince Harry because it made £1 BILLION in tourism windfall."
The judge concluded that the "continued anonymity" given the five women upheld their agreement with People magazine, as well as shielding them from the "glare of publicity" during the pre-trial stage. He added how the "unusually febrile atmosphere surrounding this case" could act as a "deterrent and undermine fitness and due process".
Matthew Dando, a partner in media at Wiggin LLP, said the ruling allowing the five women anonymity was a "disappointing decision which prefers secrecy over openness and creates a concerning precedent".
If the legal battle does go to trial, that is expected to take place early next year.