Meghan Markle has agreed to pay $87,000 to the Mail on Sunday after losing the first round of her court battle against the newspaper

• Meghan Markle will pay more than $87,000 towards the Mail on Sunday's legal costs for a pre-trial hearing which she lost in May.
• The duchess, who is suing the newspaper after it published extracts from a private letter sent to her father, had part of her claim — including that the newspaper acted dishonestly — struck out by the High Court after it was deemed irrelevant to the lawsuit.
• "Whilst the Judge recognizes that there is a claim for breach of privacy and copyright, we are surprised to see that his ruling suggests that dishonest behavior is not relevant," a legal spokesperson for the duchess said after the hearing in May.
• Meanwhile, the duchess has now asked the court to prevent the Mail on Sunday from publishing the names of five friends who defended her in an anonymous interview with People last year.
• Markle's application to prevent the paper from reporting the names of the friends — who first mentioned the letter to her father in the People interview — was the subject of a new court hearing on Wednesday.

The Duchess of Sussex has agreed to pay the Mail on Sunday's legal costs for the May pre-trial hearing which resulted in the court striking out part of her claim against the newspaper.

Meghan Markle, who is suing the newspaper after it published excerpts from a private letter sent to her father, will pay £67,000 ($87,400) to the publisher, the Mail on Sunday's sister publication the Mail Online initially reported.

A spokesperson for the duchess confirmed to Insider that she will pay the legal costs.

The court agreed in May to strike out claims that the newspaper acted dishonestly by omitting parts of the letter, and claims that the newspaper caused issues between the duchess and her father, deeming them irrelevant to the case.

The duchess is suing the publication on the grounds of misuse of private information, copyright infringement, and breach of the Data Protection Act.

"Whilst the Judge recognizes that there is a claim for breach of privacy and copyright, we are surprised to see that his ruling suggests that dishonest behavior is not relevant," a legal spokesperson for the duchess said after the hearing in May.

"We feel honesty and integrity are at the core of what matters; or as it relates to the Mail on Sunday and Associated Newspapers, their lack thereof."

Meanwhile, the duchess is now fighting to keep the names of the five friends who defended her in an anonymous interview out of the public domain after she was asked to reveal them in court.

Markle's application to prevent the Mail on Sunday from reporting the names of the friends — who first mentioned the letter in an interview with People last year — was the subject of a new court hearing on July 29.

The duchess' lawyer Justin Rushbrooke QC told the court on Wednesday: "There can be little doubt that, in addition to defending this case through the courts, the defendant is seeking to maximize the publicity surrounding this case, which it has repeatedly dubbed 'the trial of the century.'

"It was the defendant who forced the claimant to identify the names of the five friends in a court document by serving a request for further information that required those names to be given and, for her part, we submit that the claimant has done what she reasonably and sensibly could to protect their confidentiality and privacy rights," he added.

A spokesperson for the Mail on Sunday previously told Insider that the newspaper had "no intention" of publishing the names.

Read more:

Meghan Markle has lost the first stage of her court battle against The Mail on Sunday

Meghan Markle says the Mail on Sunday is threatening to name the 5 friends who defended her in an anonymous interview

Meghan Markle's occupation on Wikipedia was changed from 'model' to 'activist' days before her relationship with Prince Harry was announced