Duke of Sussex & Others v ANL: thread 2

[bluegreygreen]

This is a continuation of the discussion on the previous thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5443044-duke-of-sussex-court-case-key-witness-statement-false?page=1

We are following the court case on the

Should think today will be another damp squib - Liz Hartley's in again this morning and then my draft schedule says the court isn't sitting this afternoon (which I imagine they'd stick to regardless).

Re DL, I'm told she tried to settle several times and ANL refused. If they'd paid out it would be tantamount to accepting that they had something to feel guilty about, which they've consistently denied.

@binkie163when did he make that comment about Chelsy?

You're right but I suppose she's the one I feel sorry for.....

It was reported on at the time, quick Google guardian and new statesman come up.
He also reportedly once said of his Zimbabwean now-ex-girlfriend Chelsea Davy: “She’s not black or anything, you know.”

5/1/2005 guardian "She's not black or anything, you know." Prince Harry explained the other day, answering an inquiry about his nascent relationship with Zimbabwean heiress Chelsy Davy. I'm sure the news made no difference to Harry's papa, who has invited Chelsy to Highgrove for the weekend.

I seem to remember his idiot friend Alex the buffoon laughing about it to the press.

Re DL, I'm told she tried to settle several times and ANL refused. If they'd paid out it would be tantamount to accepting that they had something to feel guilty about, which they've consistently denied.
She could have dropped out and withdrawn her case, ANL have been absolutely clear from the start they will not settle as they have done nothing illegal. She should have cut her losses and maybe argued her case against Sherborns invoice and invited him to sue her. There must be law society rules against misleading clients.
The stress must be awful facing a huge potential loss. They must realise it doesn't seem to be going well for them.

I wonder why Hugh Grant pulled out? Was it because he didn’t want his use of street sex workers raised again now he has children old enough to be affected about reading about his behaviour. Is he the real winner here - lit the blue touch paper and scarpered?

Someone somewhere is bank rolling them - I can’t imagine DL, SF or SH have a liquid £6.3 million floating about - or even the insurance premium to cover £38million - wonder how much that cost.

Wasn’t it disclosed that max mosley left money for these cases, so it would appear he’s partially funding the case at least.

Would that even be legal ? Does it show lack of integrity or bias complainants with nothing then to lose but cash to gain / or axes to grind even if they knew there was poor chance of success?

I don’t know @Wirrrrrral🤷‍♀️ , the whole case doesn’t seem particularly legal to me but I’m not a lawyer so who knows.

4/2/2026 daily mail
Max Mosley company gave £565,000 loan to firm of convicted phone hacker (Johnson) to 'beef up the propaganda' against the Daily Mail's publisher as a string of private investigators were paid.

Half a million was to pay for investigators/evidence so not towards sherbornes invoice. Most it seems went to Johnson personally and burrows.

Hugh grant always settled, easy money, he is happy to fire up others to lose their money though. I bet he hopes they win and he can slide in on their shirt tails to claim a fortune. Tbh if you don't want bad press, don't get caught using sex workers in public getting a blow job! Zero sympathy for him.

I’d forgotten how much of a low life Hugh was.

I know it’s quite a come down to discover that he is totally opposite to the image he portrayed!

So different to the image he portrays

@PrayForMyBum Do you have any insights on which witnesses are on the stand this week?

Does anyone know if Rebecca English will be testifying?

English v Sherborne will need 🍿 🍿

I haven't been able to find anything in the news on a search this evening @Lunde

I would like to see Rebecca English give evidence. I'm fairly sure she would have notebook pages detailing exactly where her stories came from.

Interestingly, I've just seen the Sunday Times story about the Labour Together smear campaign against journalists - mentioning it here as we've been discussing issues with freedom of the press.

https://archive.is/GFEuM

Sorry, wasn't near my computer yesterday so couldn't check in as normal! Think it was a half day anyway, according to the draft schedule, and only kicked off in the afternoon.
Looks like James Heath - for the claimants - was giving evidence yesterday. Looks like he's a solicitor, but I wasn't aware of his name cropping up. I think he represented the claimants in the case against the Mirror Group.

Anyway, PA says Heath will continue this morning, followed by Peter Wright (former MoS editor), although it does say this is subject to change.

@Lunde Rebecca English will definitely give evidence. There's a whole stream of journalists listed.

Ah....James Heath was the solicitor allegedly being 'lined up to sue the Mail', according to emails in 2016-ish - he was a partner in the same firm as Sadie Frost's solicitor, Mark Thomson. Thomson told the court he had no idea Heath was being primed for an action against ANL.

Heath's evidence will no doubt be important for ANL's limitation argument.

I'm really disappointed with the lack of reporting now that the celebrity evidence is over.

Yes - same @bluegreygreen I think there will def be some coverage of Peter Wright's evidence, if he starts today. Not least because it's likely to be positive for ANL!

You would think it a very important case for all media including BBC to be following as it will affect them all if ANL lose.

I agree - it's so hard to follow the case when only the celebrities get covered

ITV news saying DL in court today to hear Stephen Wright crime editor give evidence, trying to intimidate/embarrass him I suspect. She has gone way down in my estimation after what has happened so far.
Neville Lawrence gave a letter to SW for one ofvthe stories but Sherborn suggested it could have been after a payment to police officer but no evidence of that.

Of the 5 articles she is complaining about, none look like they mention bank details and all are very positive to the Lawrence family.

Does DL forget that her husband/former husband Neville was communicating with the Mail throughout much of this contested period?

And that she has given sworn evidence as recently as November 2025 that the Met were spying on her?

This accusation of UIG against ANL doesn’t seemed focused enough to stick.

I feel I’m missing something.