Prince Andrew'a legal team filed court documents in New York today as part of a sex case brought against him by accuser Virginia Giuffre.
Giuffre claims in 2001, she was trafficked by billionaire Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to have sex with the Duke in London when she was 17, a minor in US law.
Ms Giuffre also alleges she was forced to have sex with the royal at Epstein's home in New York and the US Virgin Islands.
The mum-of-three is suing Andrew for unspecified damages, which US lawyers say could "easily" be in excess of £14 million if she is successful.
Prince Andrew has denied all allegations against him - officially filing documents today to a court - with a trial scheduled for later this year.
Here are five bombshells to come from the court documents
Andrew denies he was close friends with Maxwell
Prince Andrew admits to befriending paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, but denied he was ever a close pal of convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell.
British socialite Maxwell, 60, was convicted on December 29 on five counts of sex trafficking and other charges for recruiting and grooming teenage girls for the late financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to abuse between 1994 and 2004.
Maxwell faces up to 65 years in prison when she is sentenced by US District Judge Alison Nathan in New York.
Andrew’s denials were part of his “answer and affirmative defenses” to Giuffre’s civil complaint against him.
In the 11-page document, Andrew denied wrongdoing, but he did say in this document that he met Epstein “in or around 1999”.
Claims he wasn’t frequent guest in Epstein’s homes
The Duke, 61, said it was not true he was “a frequent guest in Epstein’s various homes around the world, including New York City where he allegedly sexually abused Plaintiff Giuffre at Epstein and Maxwell’s invitation when she was a minor.
Convicted sex offender Epstein was arrested in July 2019 for sex trafficking girls as young as 14.
He killed himself about one month later in a Manhattan jail, while awaiting trial.
Claims Giuffre and/or others may have been responsible for her own abuse
The Prince refutes her major claim of “sexual abuse” and “rape” when she was “under the age of 18 years old.”
His lawyers state: “Assuming, without admitting, that Giuffre has suffered any injury or damage, Giuffre and/or others, who are not Prince Andrew, contributed in whole or in part to the alleged damage.”
Andrew’s legal team also list “consent” and the “doctrine of unclean hands” – which is an allegation that Giuffre has acted unethically related to the accusations – among his defenses.
“Giuffre’s alleged causes of action are barred in whole or in part by her own wrongful conduct,” they wrote.
Giuffre, 38, filed a case against Andrew using New York's Child Victims Act (CVA) that allowed those abused to sue their alleged attackers.
Demands jury trial
The court documents state the Duke "hereby demands a trial by jury on all causes of action asserted in the complaint".
The case will now move to the discovery phase of the lawsuit with expert witnesses being called by both parties having to be named by May 13th.
The following day, both parties can object to whom the other intends to call.
All discovery, including the depositions given under oath by witnesses, have to be submitted to the court before the 15th of July.
Judge Lewis Kaplan has indicated a trial will begin at the earliest in September but before the end of the year.
Duke claims case should be dismissed as Giuffre lives in Australia
Court documents filed by the Duke also state the case should be dismissed on the grounds Ms Giuffre is a resident of Australia.
His legal papers say he “disputes that Giuffre is domiciled in the State of Colorado” adding “on that basis (he) denies the allegations” she is a citizen of the States.
Andrew’s legal team want Ms Giuffre’s case dismissed claiming she has no right to bring the lawsuit in New York as neither parties are residents of the US.
In a move to dismiss the case, his lawyer, Andrew Brettler tells the court: “Giuffre’s Complaint should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action, due to Giuffre’s improper assertion of diversity jurisdiction notwithstanding that she is a permanent resident of Australia and not a domiciliary of Colorado.”