Meghan Markle is set for a fresh legal headache after her half-sister, Samantha, launched an appeal over the dismissed defamation case against the duchess.
Samantha Markle had taken legal action against the Duchess of Sussex over comments she made to Oprah Winfrey in 2021 and on her Netflix show, Harry And Meghan in 2022.
She accused the former Suits actress of claiming “false and malicious lies” about her fairytale “rags-to-royalty” upbringing and contested her claim that she “grew up as an only child”.
But a US court in March dismissed the defamation case brought against Meghan by her half-sister.
Now, Samantha is appealing against the court ruling and accuses her sister of discrediting her, according to the Sun.
In new court documents obtained by the outlet and filed just two days before the duchess’s birthday last Sunday, August 4, Meghan’s half-sister claims: “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.”
Samantha’s lawyers are said to be claiming that the judge failed to take into account the implied defamation created by omitting facts.
They also claim Meghan’s suggestion she did not know her sister growing up aimed to discredit a book Samantha had written about her, and that the claims hurt Samantha’s personal and professional reputation.
According to the outlet, Samantha’s lawyers want an oral hearing but no date has been set yet.
The duchess said to Oprah that she grew up as an only child, also saying her sister changed her surname back to Markle after she began a relationship with Harry.
Samantha, who has the same father as Meghan, claimed the couple’s comments during the high-profile tell-all interview with Winfrey in 2021 were “demonstrably false and malicious lies”.
Florida judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell said Meghan’s statements could not be defamatory because they were either an opinion, “substantially true based on judicially noticed evidence”, or “not capable of being considered defamatory”.
She went on: “That Plaintiff used one last name and then the name Markle soon after reports of Defendant’s relationship with Prince Harry were published is substantially true, based on the exhibits in the record, of which the Court has taken judicial notice, and the Court cannot reasonably infer otherwise.”
The judge said in a 58-page decision that the plaintiff had “failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication”.
Meghan’s lawyer Michael J Kump, said at the time: “We are pleased with the court’s ruling dismissing the case.”