Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 4

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fourth thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) brought against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited; ANL) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).

The claimants are: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF).
They are represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) is represented by Anthony White (AMW).

The threads to date have been thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views. We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding partisan discussions on specific Royal Family members, and trying not to be derailed from the topic of court proceedings.
The case has concluded and we are now awaiting the judgement from Judge Nicklin.

We have also included (when things slowed with the title case) other cases or discussions with a specific theme of free speech/press freedom, particularly when related to those with money or power preventing others from speaking.

One current ongoing case is that involving @GwendolineFairfax8 - some details towards the end of thread 3.
The case is in court this week and is likely to be reported on at the end of the week.

Links to previous threads

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

There was limited direct reporting from court after the celebrities gave evidence; what there we followed on this link
Sky news link to court case

I think it's a combination of all of the above. He's very arrogant and entitled, and has had a post RF life of "his truth", which he has been able to monetise.
I suspect that he thought the Judge would rule in favour
Why wouldn't he?
Rather like he thinks the Home Secretary can just clear her diary and overturn RAVEC decisions to suit him.

Do we know how the costs will be shared - did the group agree this at the start?

I want to know this too. Maybe Elton will bail them all out.

I agree with you. I think there’s something pathological actually.

I think he is genuinely convinced that his version of the truth is the one that matters, and therefore anything which appears that contradicts it is unfair and should not be taken into account at all.

He lives in cloud cuckoo land.

I agree with a lot of the comments about the Mail themselves - I hate their right wing stirring up stance. But I wouldn’t criticise them for the victory lap and absolutely milking this moment - they’ve deserved it.

Excellent points, I think that's absolutely how it is.

Agree with this, especially this line
I think too many people live in echo chambers.

Many people don't like the DM because they don't like its politics. As far as stories go, it's no worse than other tabloids and better than some.

It seems to have a very good legal department, and it is interesting when you look at the complaints on the IPSO website to see how often they are found not to be in breach of standards.

(I don't subscribe to the DM or any other tabloid; I have a free (so limited) online subscription to a couple of papers; I also have a free subscription to Ground news.)

Thanks @PinkHairbrushClub - that's very clear.

I really don't think the palace needed any sort of inside information. I can't think of anyone, public or private, that believed this action was going to be successful!

I don't think anyone who followed it as closely as we did on this thread thought it had any chance of success - and the palace will have followed very closely.

Re costs: we're not privy to any agreement the claimants may have made between themselves.

I think what we do know is that they have 3 types of costs to pay:

• claimant individual costs
• claimant group costs
• ANL costs (whatever is awarded by Judge Nicklin)

Yes, exactly this. The client gets a choice, as long as they have the money or funding of course. The barrister doesn't.

I wouldn't say it's always adhered to 100%, but it usually is.

Okay, let’s say there’s some extreme pathology behind how he manages to contort himself into his belief system. You’d think the professionals in this case would have explained to their client, more than once, how things work. No, he won’t have listened to them, but there comes a point where no barrister can rightfully allow the client on the stand to spout mistruths in the presence of documentary evidence to the contrary which they themselves have submitted.

Which leads me to believe the proposition that court wasn’t the right place for what Harry/Hacked Off want, but was the only place available to them. In which case, this won’t be the end. Those who can’t afford the money or brain space may drop out. But Harry will keep going I think. More political lobbying, more ranting to whoever will print his stories, more campaigning about the right to privacy, more questionable pronouncements about free speech. In his mind this will be connected to his mother - and his dad who won’t support him in avenging his mother and undoing the wrongs that he thinks were done to him.

50 million quid, I cant get my head around this.

I have asked about insurance before, but surely insurance will come with pages of T&Cs.

Will it even pay out and which part of the costs will the insurance cover? Insurance is all risk based so how did such a weak case get underwritten in the first place.

I am very interested in the insurers. Will only comment when I am 100% certain that they are connected.

Meanwhile, no comment from Hugh Grant 🤔

Yeah, we know insurance companies will go to great lengths to find reasons not to pay out.

And like you say, this was a very weak case to begin with, so the premium must have been astronomical. I can't see any way how Harry and the others who were dumb enough to bring this ridiculous 'case' can't be on the hook for serious money. And other than Elton and maybe Harry, none of them are super rich.

Hugh Grant is annoying but he is a clever guy.

He knew this case was a crock from the start, unlike the other fools.

But still, no matter how weak the case, if they were willing to sell insurance for it then they need to pay out, unless key information was withheld from them.

Sure, but the insurance will come with a lengthy list of stipulations. Apparently a rep from the insurance company was in court every single day. It can be hard enough to get an insurance company to pay out at the best of times, so given the shambles this case turned out to be, I wouldn't be surprised if they find reasons not to pay out, at least not in full. And the premium will have been eye watering to start with.

I genuinely thought that was a drawing of Alan Bennett!

@Guest385 - Yes re the £50m ! I've been bandying it about with the best of 'em , but if I had lost a case where the costs were £50m , even shared , I wouldn't just look a bit tearful or have slightly shaky hands , I'd be throwing up somewhere and mainlining gin.
That said , I would never have embarked on it and also no-one is interested in my life so I would never have had to. It's all relative I suppose but some of those claimants can afford it better than others and I'm not sure which camps H falls into .

That said though , it's all hypothetical until the Judge awards costs , but I should think a nervous 2 - 3 weeks for all the claimants.

It will definitely be a nervous few weeks for all of the claimants and I am prepared for the possibility that the actual judgement around costs and specific figures are going to stay private.

We might never know what has been agreed in terms of who pays what. ANL will want it made as public as possible to shame and humiliate claimants who pursued such a spurious poorly evidenced claim and they will go after every penny possible.

I am not sure whether the claimants can ask for the costs hearings and the details of the actual costs award to be kept private.

The Times article states DS and friends acted on a no win no fee status as others have pointed to on these threads.

No wonder DS looked a little flustered yesterday walking into to see H and Chatham House.

Re the insurance:

I'm not clear how it works.

I remember one of our legal posters saying that the insurance companies would typically assess the claim at every stage (e.g. after pre-trial hearings).
Would they normally see the legal documents, or just receive a summary from the claimants' legal team?

If they were in court daily, as @IcedPurple says, having just received summaries, and were now seeing how poor the evidence was, I imagine they wouldn't be very happy.
However, if they had seen the evidence for themselves beforehand, I'm not sure what objection they could make.

Yes, there was an article linked on one of the previous threads with a profile of Sherborne, which said he did these 'campaigning' cases as no-win no-fee.

For whatever a quick Google is worth, it seems Harry is worth around £47 million so he could absorb his share of £50m. Probably more about the humiliation than anything else. I think most of them could absorb that, with the possible exception of Doreen Lawrence, I don't know her situation... and ill advised as this was, surely none of those wealthy people around her would let her get ruined after the tragedy she's already suffered and everything she did in its aftermath. Am I being naive?

Interesting.

So a barrister who normally charges at least £500 an hour worked on this lengthy, complicated case entirely for free? And what about all the legal assistants and researchers? They will need to be paid too. Is it just Hair Gel's fee that was waived?

I don't the internet knows anyone's true worth. Remember when the internet said Katie Price was worth £40 million. It was all bollocks. I imagine Elton and David can manage the legal fees. I don't think Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Doreen Lawrenson, Simon Hughes are worth eye watering sums though. Also Prince Harry and his family probably spend like they are royalty without the royal gravy train, so will be stressful for them.