Naming friends in legal battle with British tabloid 'unacceptably high price' for Meghan Markle

Meghan Markle, who along with her husband Prince Harry has been in a legal battle with four British tabloids for months now, has once again requested the UK high court to prevent the defenders from disclosing the identity of her five friends who anonymously defended her in an article last year.

In the latest hearing in the case, Meghan Markle's lawyer Justin Rushbrooke argued that naming the five pals in the public would be "an unacceptably high price" for her for pursuing the case through the courts. The five women had given quotes to People magazine in favour of the former American actress in February 2019, days after a UK outlet published a private letter she sent to her estranged father Thomas Markle.

Rushbrooke asked the court for an injunction, saying: "To force (her)... to disclose their identities to the public at this stage would be to exact an unacceptably high price for pursuing her claim for invasion of privacy against the defendant in respect of its disclosure of the letter."

The lawyer also argued that it would be an "irony" that the "Suits" alum will have to pay the price by disclosing the names even before her claim has been validated, reports Evening Standard.

"Given the close factual nexus between the letter and the events leading up to the defendant's decision to publish its contents, it would be a cruel irony were she required to pay that price before her claim has even been determined," he said.

Rushbrooke also said that the five pals of the Duchess of Sussex who have already been named in the confidential papers available with the defendants are entitled to "a very high level of super-charged right of confidentiality" as confidential journalistic sources.

The lawyer also cited a recent report published by the defending tabloid with sub-headline "Meghan has now identified the five friends, who spoke anonymously, naming them in confidential papers," and "the friends will never be identified," arguing that the "massively long article" lead to speculations about the identity of the women.

One of the five women has also submitted a witness statement in the court in support of the injunction application. However, her identity was accidentally disclosed during Rushbrooke's oral submission. Judge Justice Warby, who has banned naming the friends at this stage, swiftly imposed a reporting restriction on the lawyer's slip-up saying it was "bound to happen." He is expected to rule on the matter before Saturday, Aug. 8.

Meanwhile, defenders' attorney Antony White argued in the court: "There is no proper evidential basis (for the application). There is no evidence at all from four of the five friends and the evidence from the fifth (Friend B) has been shown to be unsatisfactory."