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

This was the article previously linked, referring to Sherborne doing the phone hacking cases on a 'no win no fee' basis.

https://archive.is/Wo6iZ

Well, it leads the charge in misogyny for a start, so for that alone, it's pretty hideous.

Costs may soar
It is understood from sources close to the litigation that the lawyers for the claimants — four barristers led by the celebrity lawyer David Sherborne, who were instructed by the law firms Sheridans Solicitors and Thomson Heath Jenkins & Associates — acted on a no-win, no-fee basis.
If the claimants had agreed what is called a conditional fee deal, their law firms would have obtained insurance to cover part of the publisher’s costs if the claim failed.

It is unlikely that they would have been able to obtain insurance to cover all of Associated’s costs and now all seven claimants are liable for those uninsured fees, which could still run into the millions. There is nothing to prevent the wealthier claimants from covering the excess legal costs for the entire group.
Colin Campbell, a former specialist High Court costs judge, said “it would be no surprise if Associated Newspapers sought to recover its costs on the indemnity basis, a more favourable form of costs order that is reserved for cases where the court considers a party’s conduct has fallen outside the norm”.
The former judge, who now works for a firm of costs lawyers, said if the judge agreed to that punitive element, “it would make it easier for [Associated] to recover a substantially greater proportion of its legal costs because it would not have to satisfy the court that those costs were proportionate and necessary, only that they were reasonably incurred”.

From The Times.

Interesting. I still wonder exactly what 'no win no fee' means.

Not even a retainer? Sherborne foots the bill for all the assistants?

ETA: Bouffant must have known this case was a crock, so this was a huge risk for him.

He was the puppet master behind the case and commenting on it until he was shown how his own personal information had been leaked by his inner circle - then he shut up.

I did not know that. Interesting.

This whole case really should never have been brought. So much court time wasted. Rich people with a bone to pick, at taxpayers' expense. At least Grant had the sense to drop out.

It’s better referred to as a “conditional fee agreement”. So you only get paid on condition that you are successful and get an award.

on a matter this big I wouldn’t be surprised if only part of the fee was on that basis. Perhaps the court litigation and advocacy itself, but excluding the prep. But who knows 🤷‍♀️

the whole thing seems bonkers!

I think that people with the wealth of Harry usually live within the means of the investments.
I doubt the uber rich have to touch much if any of their capital.
I think maybe Harry has been reaching into his capital to maintain the lifestyle he believes he’s entitled to.
if that’s the case his capital will be depleting every day.

silly boy!
not sure what the returns are on £50m (assuming he’s worth that much) but think he’s maybe exceeding his returns which means capital loss.
especially if he is really ring fencing his inherited worth from his mother for his children’s future.
very much doubt he has the nouse to employ good wealth managers.
my heart bleeds

I agree. These 'net worths' are plucked out of thin air.

Elton is obviously loaded. A few million is back of the sofa money to him. Harry's situation is not that clear. I'm sceptical about the various inheritances he supposedly got, but he can probably afford to be a few million down, although he'll resent every penny. The likes of Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley peaked decades ago, so I doubt they're filthy rich. Doreen Lawrence certainly not.

But I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for any of them. More fool them. All of them.

Hugh Grant didn’t drop out - he just stopped commenting. This is hugely embarrassing for him and Evan Harris. Graham Johnson’s reputation is already in the gutter so it doesn’t matter about him. His partner, Emma Jones is on the board of Hacked Off. Johnson did at least have the good sense to transfer their home into her sole name prior to this kicking off (not UIG - it is Bylines registered office address).

@GwendolineFairfax8 Do you think HG told the others how his own info was leaked?

I think the right judgment was made by the court, but I just wanted to come back on this.

Doreen Lawrence is in and from a totally different category to the other celebs on this group. She is essentially an ordinary woman who suffered awful tragedy and still campaigned for justice and improvements to police with huge dignity and selflessness. She isn’t or hasn’t pursued sleb status and I can easily see how Harry would have been overly convincing and persuasive. She doesn’t have a team around her, neither does she hobnob with the likes of The Spare, or Elton, or Liz Hurley and I hope if DM pursues costs, they think carefully about the differences within the claimant cohort. I would think extremely badly of a pursuit of DL.

I have no idea what you actually mean @GwendolineFairfax8 by ‘unlimited resources’ but I can assure you that is not the case and you are talking or repeating bollocks.

If they do pursue costs, can they pursue them against only selected claimants? I would definitely agree with not ruining DL, but legally, if there are several claimants, is it possible to pursue some and not others?

Sorry no I completely disagree.

DL chose to join this case with the same knowledge as all the others. She's a mature woman with plenty of experience of the media and the legal system, not a naive teen.

She also chose to put her name to that appalling, slanderous statement, basically accusing the judge of being corrupt. She's lucky if she and Harry don't get done for Contempt of Court.

If you're going to get involved with a very dodgy civil case, using up precious public time and resources, then you need to be prepared to take the consequences if it doesn't go your way. No matter what tragedies you have suffered or what good if you have done elsewhere.

I will be very disappointed if the costs are shrouded in secrecy at the end of the month - I'd like icing on the cake please 🎂 !

Hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about such as @Serenster will let us know, but AFAIK all claimants will have to pay part of an overall fee. After that, costs will depend on how much time ANL spent fighting their particular claim. Meaning Harry will be out of pocket most, with the others sharing the rest. But I'm very much open to correction on this.

Civil litigation is extremely costly. Best not to get involved unless you know you can cover the costs if the case doesn't go your way. No sympathy for any who chose to be a part of this farce.

Harry may be living above his means but I don’t get the impression he cares much about a hollywood lifestyle for himself. I based this on their interviews he shopped at TK Maxx and lived in what she considered a frat house. Appeared to function more like someone with old money (and his family were the essence of it.) Nothing he does now seems to alter that impression. Sport, charities, pursing what he considers to be justice. (Despite any obvious delusions, it’s obvious he THINKS he’s right!)

Meghan, on the other hand. But she is likely to be much more financially literate and aware of the need to keep funds incoming. She appears to be the one putting effort into that, too.

The money will be mostly going to security, mortgage and upkeep, and the children’s education.

I also disagree.

Doreen Lawrence is an adult, with experience of campaigning.

She also has experience of the courts, with a previous successful case against the Metropolitan Police.

She also sits in the House of Lords, so has significant resources at her disposal which many of us would not have.

She has had 2 years of pre-trial hearings to examine the evidence and decide whether or not to proceed.

She has now totally maligned a very experienced judge, who has given a very careful and detailed judgement.

From a legal perspective, I see no difference between members of this cohort, save that (a) there was clear email evidence that SH and SF's claims would have been time-barred, even if successful and (b) PH and DL are the only two who have maligned the judge.

I though he said Richard Kay not Richard Eden?

I also disagree - if DL is capable of sitting in the House of Lords and voting on legislatures that effect us all then she should absolutely be capable of understanding what she got into with this action and what the potential consequences were. I would not expect the Mail to give her special treatment at all - the decent thing would be for Elton John, Prince Harry et al to bail her out.

Absolutely. Obviously I don't want DL to be bankrupted or anything like that, but she's not some naive little girl being manipulated by baddies.

If she can't meet the costs, maybe one of her wealthy co-claimants could help out? I wonder if it's true that Harry persuaded her to take part by promising to meet all her costs? Foolish thing to do if true, but this is Harry we're talking about.

Apologies I see the Richard Eden v Richard Kay has already been clarified.

@SurferRona

You cannot be serious!

Baroness Lawrence sits in the House of Lords alongside world-class legal minds who can explain legal concepts or point her in the right direction.

Spot on, IcedPurple, and with the usual caveat about what Doreen's suffered I find it pretty disturbing to see suggestions that she should be treated as a special case when it comes to costs

To me, lionising her for her campaigning work sits ill with attempts to infantalise her when it suits, especially when some of her choices have been deeply inappropriate (firefighters, allegations about Stephen Wright, insulting the judge, etc.)

As others have pointed out she's a lawmaker surrounded on all sides by other lawmakers, so will hardly be short of advice and painting her as some sort of helpless ingenue simply doesn't work

Absolutely DL should be treated the same as the other claimants, it is insulting to her to suggest otherwise.