Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 5

[bluegreygreen]

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

Judgement was handed down by Judge Nicklin on 7th July 2026.
All claims were dismissed.
Links to the summary and full judgement are below.
We are currently awaiting decisions around costs, with the next hearing due on 29-30th July.

The threads to date were thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views.
Following the judgement, we discussed the judgement itself, the reaction, statements made by different parties and ongoing relevant issues.

We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding more general discussion on Royal Family members, which can become partisan, and trying not to be derailed from the main topic of the thread.

We have occasionally 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.

Links to previous threads
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4

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

Summary judgement

Full judgement

@Serenster This was said about the barristers. They are not SRA regulated. It’s BSB. DS et al are where the mega costs would have been.

It’s odd because it’s usually pro bono and done because it’s an ultra important legal argument/case , the claimants might not get much, if anything, by winning the case and those involved want it on their cv so waive fees. DD has done a couple. No win, no fee is different but maybe the barristers did agree this? They didn’t win though so one assumes no fee! Might be total bullshit of course.

This was on X so not sure if it’s veracity. Interesting if true.

I don’t think that real / verified? Looks derivative.

It's been picked up on a few news outlets, but who the fuck knows. Maybe Elton will sue.

Yes, you’re right - AOL News have published it online here

https://www.aol.com/articles/elton-john-furious-pal-prince-202459000.html

I take it all back, @HoldMyWine !

It's from Paula Froelich - now being reported on a few sites.

She's speaking here on Sky News Australia. The gist of her story is that Harry had already asked Elton for money for Invictus 2027, and he had refused, so wasn't happy with Harry anyway.
He is now unhappy with Harry's outburst about Judge Nicklin after the judgement.

Here's the link: Sky News Australia video

I haven't seen any other source - any other sites reporting it are linking back to her report.

It originated here on Paula Froelich’s Substack, and she then spoke to Sky News Australia (Danica de Giorgio).

Neither EJ nor HAM have commented.

https://thescoopwithpaulafroelich.substack.com/p/exclusive-i-am-not-an-atm-elton-john

X-post with you there, @bluegreygreen.

What’s your take on this? It seems conveniently close to what Charles is reputed to have once said to H. In other words, too juicy to be true.

I did think that, though I have been told before that Paula Froelich is a reputable media/celebrity journalist.

It was 15 hrs ago, and none of the mainstream UK news sites have picked it up. I suppose they may be checking to see if they can verify it. If they can, we may see the story run here over the next 24 hrs.