There’s fresh legal pain for the Duchess of Sussex as her half-sister attempts to drag her back into court. Samantha Markle is trying to sue Meghan for defamation for the second time, after a judge dismissed the original case for lack of evidence.
In the first claim – which was thrown out in March last year – Markle said the duchess portrayed her as a “lying, racist, fame-seeker”. The case was related to the biography Finding Freedom by Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand.
Markle had claimed Meghan spread “demonstrably false and malicious lies” to a “worldwide audience” in the book and on television. The $120,000 AUD lawsuit claimed Samantha was subjected to “humiliation and hatred” after Meghan said she felt she grew up as an only child.
Now, in an appeal, Markle is taking issue with Meghan’s comments from interviews given to Oprah Winfrey in 2021 and in the Netflix docu-series Harry and Meghan from 2022. British tabloid The Sun has cited legal documents which say: “Meghan knew what she was doing, and how to do it. “She destroyed Samantha publicly and on a global scale.
“She has made it so Samantha cannot work, or even enjoy the most mundane of activities, like going to the grocery store without harassment.” The documents were lodged in a Florida court two days before Meghan’s 43rd birthday on Sunday, the publication claims.
Markle’s lawyers are now arguing the judge in the original lawsuit failed to take into account the implied defamation created by omitting facts. The documents say Markle was portrayed as someone “who is out to harm Meghan and to capitalize on that harm caused”, adding that it was falsely implied that Markle was part of a hate group of online trolls.
Markle’s lawyers have asked for an oral hearing but no date has been set. They said: “Oral argument is desired as the issues may require some clarification”. In March last year, Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell found that the Duchess of Sussex was expressing an “opinion about her childhood” and relationship with her half-siblings that cannot be disproved, and so she was not liable for the book’s claims.
