Meghan Markle’s court win may be reversed with her friends getting exposed in legal battle

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle recently had a major win in the court case against Associated Newspapers.

However, the Duchess of Sussex’s last month’s victory against the tabloids, where she fought to keep her friends names in an article by People magazine anonymous, could soon be overturned.

Judge Mark Warby had ruled last month at London’s High Court that the names of the duchess’ friends should be remain under wraps.

“I have concluded that, for the time being at least, the court should grant the claimant the order she seeks,” he had said.

As per experts, the phrase “time being” is of great importance in the ruling as it indicates that the ruling could be overturned in the future quite possibly.

Attorney for Associated Newspapers, Anthony White claims that Meghan’s friends were potential witnesses and concealing their identity “would be a heavy curtailment of the media’s and defendant’s entitlement to report this case and the public’s right to know about it”.

That is when the judge acknowledged that there was a need to balance “the competing demands of confidentiality and open justice.”

“Generally, it does not help the interests of justice if those involved in litigation are subjected to, or surrounded by, a frenzy of publicity,” said the judge.

“At trial, that is a price that may have to be paid in the interests of transparency. But it is not a necessary concomitant of the pretrial phase,” he added.

Russell Myers, Daily Mirror royal editor told Ann Gripper in the Pod Save the Queen podcast that the decision could be turned following the “killer line” given by the judge.

“They had yet another hearing which was to iron out the details of whether these five friends would be named in the court case,” said Myers.

“The issue is that the judge said he won’t grant permission for them to be named ‘at the moment’ and this is the killer line because it may transpire that these five friends are called to give evidence and we have spoken before about how this is really, really integral to the case,” he added.