Andrew's lawyer says documents will absolve him of liability in sex assault case

By Tony Jones, PA & Tess de la Mare, PA & Nick Wood

Lawyers for the Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement “releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability”.

Virginia Giuffre claims she was trafficked by Andrew’s former friend, and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, to have sex with the duke, when she was aged 17 and a minor under US law.

At a pre-trial hearing, Andrew B Brettler, for the duke, said Ms Giuffre has previously entered into a “settlement agreement” that would nullify her current lawsuit.

He told the US district court for the southern district of New York that Andrew’s lawyers have “significant concerns about the propriety of this lawsuit”.

Mr Brettler was apparently appointed at the last moment after Ms Giuffre’s legal team accused Andrew’s lawyers of having “stonewalled” their attempts to get them to engage with the case.

The attorney has carved out a successful career defending allegations arising from the #MeToo movement.

“We believe this is a baseless, unviable and potentially unlawful lawsuit that the plaintiff has filed against the duke,” Mr Brettler said.

“There has been a settlement agreement that the plaintiff has entered into in a prior action that releases the duke and others from any and all potential liability.”

Judge Lewis A Kaplan repeatedly sought to limit the scope of the hearing to whether or not the duke had been properly served notice of the case, and what action the court needs to take to ensure the legal papers reach him.

David Boies, representing Ms Giuffre, said that the complaint had been “delivered to the last known address of the defendant”, and added that the documents had also been sent “by Royal Mail”.

Mr Boies said: “We believe we have complied with the service requirement and we filed proof of service last Friday.”

He said he expected Andrew to challenge the claim that notice of the case has been properly served on him.

Andrew’s lawyers have 'significant concerns about the propriety of this lawsuit' (PA Wire/PA Images)

Mr Brettler said that the duke’s team contested “the validity of service to date”, adding he has not been properly served under either UK or international law.

He said that it could be up to the High Court in London to decide whether the case can proceed.

The alleged settlement agreement cited by Mr Brettler is currently sealed under the order of a different judge, the court heard.

Mr Boies said it was “inconsistent” to be making discovery requests for documents when the case still hinges on whether or not the duke has been properly served notice of the proceedings, and whether the US courts have jurisdiction over the case.

He added that if the duke does choose to engage with proceedings and make a formal request for documents, Ms Giuffre’s legal team would respond “very promptly”.

Mr Brettler said that he believed the document “absolves our client from any and all liability”, adding other defendants had avoided similar proceedings by relying on its existence.

Judge Kaplan listed the case for a further hearing in-person next month.

He recommended both sides discuss the service of the case ahead of the next hearing in order to get to the “substance” of the claim.

Ms Giuffre is seeking unspecified damages, but there is speculation the sum could be in the millions of dollars.

The duke does not face the prospect of an extradition hearing as this only applies to criminal charges and not civil cases.

Lawyers for Ms Giuffre filed the civil suit against the duke citing allegations of battery by sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

For more stories from where you live, visit InYourArea.


What is inkl?

Important stories

See news based on value, not advertising potential. Get the latest news from around the world.

Trusted newsrooms

We bring you reliable news from the world’s most experienced journalists in the most trusted newsrooms.

Ad-free reading

Read without interruptions, distractions or intrusions of privacy.