To make sure you never miss out on your favourite NEW stories, we're happy to send you some reminders
Click 'OK' then 'Allow' to enable notifications
Featured Image Credit: Alamy
The Duke of York will face a civil sex case trial after a US judge dismissed a motion by Prince Andrew’s legal team to have the lawsuit thrown out.
The Royal believes he should not face legal action with regards to allegations linked to deceased paedophile Jeffrey Epstein because of an agreement Virginia Giuffre, 38, had made with him back in 2009.
Outlining his reasons for denying the Duke of York’s motion to dismiss the civil case against him, Judge Lewis Kaplan said an agreement in the civil settlement between Jeffrey Epstein and Virginia Giuffre 'cannot be said' to benefit him.
In his ruling, he explained: “The 2009 Agreement cannot be said to demonstrate, clearly and unambiguously, the parties intended the instrument ‘directly,’ ‘primarily,’ or ‘substantially,’ to benefit Prince Andrew.
“The existence of the requisite intent to benefit him, or others comparable to him, is an issue of fact that could not properly be decided on this motion even if defendant fell within the releasing language, which itself is ambiguous.
“Thus, independent of whether the release language applies to Prince Andrew, the agreement, at a minimum, is ‘reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation’ on the equally important question of whether this defendant may invoke it."
The judge continued: “The fact that the defendant has brought the matter before the Court on a motion to dismiss the complaint as legally insufficient is of central importance.
“As is well known to lawyers, but perhaps not known to the lay public, the defendant, by making this motion, placed upon the court the unyielding duty to assume, for the purposes of this motion only, the truth of all of plaintiff’s allegations and to draw in plaintiff’s favour all inferences that reasonably may be drawn from those allegations.
“In consequence, the law prohibits the Court from considering at this stage of the proceedings defendant’s efforts to cast doubt on the truth of Ms Giuffre’s allegations, even though his efforts would be permissible at trial.
“In a similar vein and for similar reasons, it is not open to the Court now to decide, as a matter of fact, just what the parties to the release in the 2009 settlement agreement signed by Ms Giuffre and Jeffrey Epstein actually meant.”
As per the BBC, the agreement, disclosed by a New York court, revealed that Epstein paid her $500,000 (£371,000) to end her claim against him.
It also stated that Ms Giuffre couldn't sue anyone connected to Epstein who could be described as a 'potential defendant'.
And it is this clause that Prince Andrew and his team stated protects him from any legal case being launched.
The prince's legal representative Mr Brettler previously told a hearing in New York that the agreement 'releases Prince Andrew and others from any purported liability arising from the claims Ms Giuffre asserted against Prince Andrew here'.
Giuffre is suing the Queen's son for allegedly sexually assaulting her when she was a teenager.
She is seeking unspecified damages, but it has been reported that the sum could be in the millions of dollars.
She claims she was trafficked by disgraced financier Epstein to have sex with Andrew when she was aged 17 - a minor under US law.
The royal, who was friends with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, herself convicted on sex trafficking charges last month, has strongly denied the allegations.
Giuffre's lawyers had previously asked for proof to back his claim that he can't sweat.
The allegations came up during his infamous interview with Emily Maitlis on Newsnight back in 2019.
The royal claimed that part of Ms Giuffre's account of her meeting with him didn't stack up because she claimed that she remembered him sweating a lot.
He said that there was a 'problem' with this account because he had a medical condition at the time as a result of his military career which meant he was unable to sweat.
Ms Giuffre's lawyers, filed by David Boies and Sigrid McCawley, called on Prince Andrew to supply "all documents concerning your alleged medical condition of anhidrosis, hypohidrosis, or your inability to sweat".
However, Prince Andrew's lawyers rejected the request "on the grounds that it is harassing and seeks confidential and private information and documents that are irrelevant, immaterial and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence".
According to reports, his legal team also added that Prince Andrew didn't have any documents in his possession to hand over.