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

If I was DL I'd be ensuring the press knew PH had pledged to underwrite my costs.

What for?

What for? To make sure he didn't fuck off back on a plane to Cali.
If he told DL he would pay her share of the costs in the event of evisceration on court - he should!

I'd be letting the press know!

In court

Ummmmm…. The source says “nobody, least of all The Duke, is going to see her out of pocket”.

That doesn’t read to me like H is volunteering to pay her costs. Rather a large piece of PR fluff.

Who exactly is “nobody”? And seeing to it doesn’t mean paying it himself. Could mean H is going to put in a call to Elton or start a crowd funder.

Given how much H himself is on the hook for (plus prior legal costs he allegedly still hasn’t paid and a warehouse of soon to be out of spread runny jam) I’d be surprised if his accountant isn’t already sweating buckets about meeting his own debts.

DL has been so naive if she hasn't got the assurance in writing. If she hasn't & PH/HackedOff or whoever are shy about putting their hand in their pocket, she needs to do an interview after the costs hearings saying in no uncertain terms : "PH said he would cover my costs, I expect him to honour that".

Wonder if news of this kind offer has made it back to Cali yet:

"You've offered who how much"?

@notimagain Can you IMAGINE the conniptions?

I suspect when PH made that offer he couldn't/didn't foresee losing the case. So he never expected to have to put his hand in his pocket. And they wanted her on board because she was the one with the dead child [sic] so public sympathy guaranteed (they thought) so they (he) used a promise he thought he would never be taken up on.

If - big if, Judge Nicklin awards indemnity costs & PH has made a previous agreement to pick up DL bill & he doesn't it will truly be the end for him.
The disgust & vilification will be the finish. Esp if DL says he offered. Im guessing in that case EJ would pay rather than endure the publicity.
But after Mr Lawrences interview, I wouldn't be surprised if DL exposed any broken promises.

I've said the same on another thread!!

Insurance companies spend vast amounts of money looking for ways to get out of their cover once risks crystallise, I am sorry to tell you. And the insurance policy holders quite often have to sue them to get them to pay out.

I suspect the insurers, like the claimants, thought that the Mail would settle to avoid a lengthy and uncertain trial. Most litigants do. And we know Harry & co were trying to settle shortly before the trial. That route would normally see compensation paid by the defendant just to make it go away.

Unfortunately for the claimants, the Mail wanted their day in court.

They certainly do. My last two dealings with insurance companies made me seriously wonder what the point of insurance is. For one claim I think they spent more trying to wriggle out of it than it would have cost to pay out at the start.

The Times talked to various people about the costs yesterday. It’s believed the solicitors and barrister for Harry et al worked on a no win, no fee basis. It’s also understood the claimants COULD have agreed a conditional fee deal meaning insurance would have been taken out to cover part of ANLs costs. The uninsured fees are likely to be £ millions and need to be paid by the claimants or the wealthier claimants for all of them.

A former high court costs judge said,” it would be no surprise if ANL sought to recover 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”. ANL would then only have to prove the costs were reasonable, not that they were proportionate and necessary.

So unless anyone here is acting as a costs lawyer for ANL, no one knows what will happen but it seems pretty sure the claimants cannot have insurance to cover the full amount. No wonder the RF told Harry to stay out of court!

I agree with this.

Oh for the laugh emoji

So unless anyone here is acting as a costs lawyer for ANL, no one knows what will happen

True, but it is fun to speculate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/09/doreen-lawrence-legal-bill-failed-sue-daily-mail-prince-harry

This is really a very poorly written article IMO by Michael Savage ‘media editor’. He seems to know very little detail about the case and the timeline - he’s vague on dates, running order, costs, legal specifics …

He’s just trotting out more Sussex PR machine puffs of smoke.

Am I right in thinking that Doreen Lawrence still faces a costs order being made against her? If someone volunteers to pay that for her, then that’s nice for her, but the judge will still issue the order in her name.

I’m interested too in any residual liabilities from this case that may be ‘jointly and severally’. Those liabilities can be absolute bastards to sort out, which is why I avoid them like the plague.

I can see them all ending up suing each other and suing the lawyers and suing the insurance company.

I've seen some on social media claiming there will be no payments whatsoever because of insurance and no win no fee whilst simultaneously praising Harry for covering Doreen costs.

I think Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes might have particular problems given what Judge Nicklin said about the charade around the limitation problem. (I saw this in yesterday’s print issue, not on the website.)

The judge said that Evan Harris acted ‘dishonestly’ in hatching the scheme and that there was ‘deception’. I need to read the whole section of the ruling but my bloody broadband keeps going down.

A question for regular posters on the thread:

We're now into the last 30 posts of this thread.
Now that the judgement has happened, do people want me to set up a new thread when this one is finishing (to cover the costs hearing / any possible appeal / ongoing fallout etc)?
Or should we leave things now to merge in with the other threads?

I'm happy to set up a new thread if people think it's still worth having a separate one.

I would prefer the ANL stuff stay separate thread to all the usual ham bollicks, if that's ok with you.

Yes, I've had other stuff going on so haven't got very far through the actual judgement, @AnAutumnCrow.

I could imagine the insurance people would take a dim view of that - and also possibly Judge Nicklin's comments on Harry's verbal evidence contradicting his documents.

I would like one please. There’s often a lot of HAM noise in general and I personally like the separation of this specific issue. Especially as the cost issue is still to be determined.