F4J respond to Mylene Klass demands that advert is removed “IMMEDIATELY” or face defamation claim
23rd July 2015
Zoe Morris
[email protected]
Lee & Thompson LLP
Tel: +44 (020) 3073 7600
www.leeandthompson.com
REF: YOUR CLIENT MYLEENE KLASS
Dear Sirs,
We are in receipt of your letter of 22nd July 2015.
Please be aware that as this is a matter of public interest, we do not regard correspondence on this matter as confidential. In fact, it is important that all correspondence is published to ensure full transparency and that the bullying and threatening legal letters sent on behalf of your client, Myleene Klass, to Fathers4Justice, are available to the public for viewing.
Secondly, with regard to family proceedings, we do not recognise the authority of secret and abusive family courts that are responsible for separating tens of thousands of children from their fathers every year.
Far from seeking privacy as you claim, Myleene Klass ruthlessly uses publicity as a tool to promote her brand and private life for financial gain and to win sympathy following her divorce. A point that will not be lost on the family courts in your client’s case.
Yet, when faced with a balanced and reasonable advert, raising legitimate questions about whether she is a contact denier and has denied her children access to their father for over a year as reported in the national press, her response has been wholly disproportionate and unreasonable.
We have now been made aware of your client’s attempt to silence debate around her conduct in the national media and prevent publication of our advertisement through the use of her agent Simon Jones and a letter before action to the media citing Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This crude attempt at censorship prevented publication of the story in the national media on Wednesday 22nd July.
These are not the actions of someone who you claim, “wants to engage constructively with you…has no axe to grind…regarding your (misguided) campaign against our client”, but that of a North Korean dictator who repeatedly demands that:
“we remove our advert from social media “IMMEDIATELY” and ensure it is not featured in the national press or she will seek substantial compensation, aggravated damages for defamation including in respect of any subsequent re-publication of your defamatory portrayal of her, for which you will be liable in law.”
With regard to defamation, you will be aware of the threshold test for any action and the pre-action protocols that apply. It is our view however that the advert, whilst embarrassing for your client, is not defamatory. Can we also bring your attention to our rights under Article 10 regarding freedom of expression on matters of legitimate public debate and concern.
You should advise your client that not only is her conduct antagonising a sizeable constituency of separated parents, but it will be wholly counterproductive and can only lead to an escalation of this dispute.
Threatening legal action against Fathers4Justice for saying kids should see their dads is the equivalent of threatening legal action against Greenpeace for saying save the whale.
Regarding your use of Article 8, you will be aware that this is a qualified right and that a public figure such as your client does not enjoy the same respect for their private life as others.
It would be difficult for your client to argue a right to a private life given her ubiquitous presence in the national media promoting swimwear alongside her very public comments about the breakdown of her marriage, not least in the press yesterday: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3170565/Myleene-Klass-sizzles-navy-bikini-following-Graham-Quinn-spat.html
In fact, the Article 8 claim is a smokescreen to conceal the real purpose of this action which is to protect your client’s financial interests and numerous endorsement deals from any negative publicity.
Further, your client will also be aware of her children’s (and ex-husband’s) right to family life under Article 8 which includes, “a right to respect for one’s established family life and a stable relationship between parents and children”. Given your client’s reported conduct, she appears to be in breach of this Article.
Finally, we note that your threatened injunction against Fathers4Justice has failed to materialise and that you now falsely and bizarrely claim that Myleene Klass “has taken it upon herself to explain to you the correct factual situation. She has denied the allegations and done so directly (and privately) with you,”
Your client has provided no such denials, or correspondence.
Your client has until 4.00pm today to comply with the following requests:
- Make a full, public denial in the national media that the allegations she denied her children access to her father for over a year are entirely false
- States she supports a loving, meaningful relationship between the children and their father
- She apologise to Fathers4Justice in the national media for wrongfully accusing us of defamation
- She makes a statement saying that she supports shared parenting
- She gives an undertaking that she will take legal action against the sources of the original allegations on which our advert is based
In the event that these are not forthcoming, we will escalate our campaign accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Fathers4Justice
Latest legal letter from lawyers for Myleene Klass.
