The Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle will receive £ 1 in damages from Associated Newspapers after winning her privacy case against The Mail.
The British pound was contained in court documents that formally confirmed that the newspaper eventually accepted defeat, the BBC reported.
The Mail on Sunday published a handwritten letter that Ms. Markle sent to her father, Thomas Markle, in 2018.
The newspaper will also pay an undisclosed sum for a separate case of copyright infringement, according to the BBC.
Before accepting defeat, Associated Newspapers had previously indicated that it was considering a new appeal to the Supreme Court, but later, the company finally admitted defeat in the long-running case.
Last February it was reported that the Supreme Court had ruled against Associated Newspapers on privacy and copyright issues, saying the issues in the case were so clear that there was no need for a full hearing.
However, in December, the Court of Appeal rejected Associated Newspapers’ attempt to have a trial.
Appellate judges said it was difficult to see what evidence at trial would have altered the situation.
“The judges have correctly decided that while it might have been proportionate to publish a very small part of the letter … it was not necessary to publish half of the content of the letter.”
In response, the BBC quoted the Associated Newspapers spokesperson as saying that “it is our firm opinion that the judgment should be rendered only on the basis of the evidence at trial, and not summarily in a highly contested case.”
For her part, Ms Markle urged people to be “brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that … benefits from the lies and pain they create.”
The newspaper group will also pay a confidential sum for copyright infringement, while Mail on Sunday also faces having to cover a substantial portion of Ms Markle’s legal costs, who BBC Said it could be over £ 1 million.
Ms. Markle said her ambition is based on principle rather than reward.
His lawyers had already pointed out, before the Mail on Sunday’s appeal was heard, that they were only seeking nominal damages for violation of privacy, the BBC reported.