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.

I would suggest that EJ realises that H’s ‘ statement’ about the case being a whitewash, could mean that the judge will side with ANL now in awarding higher costs?

Marina Hyde takes a strong stance on the need to support a free press in the current climate.
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-rest-is-entertainment/id1718287198?i=1000776631462

The costs hearing will make interesting reading but whether anyone gets to know who is paying what is another matter. ANL could spill some beans on that one assumes!

I do wonder if it might be a calculated action by EJ and/or the King not to support Harry financially in regards to court costs as insurance against any potential divorce payouts down the line.

I am sure I am telling you what you already know if your DD is a barrister (😀 ), but barristers’ fees count as disbursements (i.e. fixed out of pocket costs, like court filing fees) unlike solicitor’s fees. Barristers bill the solicitors for their work directly (and solicitors used to be personally liable to pay them even if the client didn’t front up with the money!) , and the solicitor adds it to their own bills to the clients, but as a disbursement. So the two categories of costs are treated differently when funding litigation.

Often a claimant will enter into a separate credit agreement to pay the disbursements, which is then paid off either by the damages won, or the proceeds of the ATE insurance. But there are other ways of doing this. But generally in civil litigation barristers don’t work on conditional fee agreements (as you say they normally only do so in smaller tier cases, like personal injury and human rights). I would be very surprised if a barrister of the calibre of David Sherborne was interested in taking that risk - it’s the law firms who have the financial ability to do so.

(The way barristers and solicitors work together is quite opaque to those who are looking on externally, so I am not surprised the reporting is not very precise. on this issue. More will likely become clear at the costs hearing)

Thank you @Serenster - I enjoy learning about the nuts and bolts of how things work.

The article linked is an interview with Sherborne in the FT, which is where we first found that he apparently does these cases on a no win no fee basis. I think it has also been reported more recently.
As you say, it doesn't make a lot of sense, unless perhaps seen in context of a personal campaign.
https://archive.is/Wo6iZ

Thanks, this is such a fascinating article/interview in hindsight.

In June [2022], Prince Harry became the first British royal to sit in a witness box for 130 years. He said that he’d got the idea for a hacking claim from meeting Sherborne (“a lovely fellow”) at Elton John and David Furnish’s house in France. “I didn’t encourage him to do anything . . . I was there and he was there . . . I don’t have to encourage anyone to bring a claim. To be honest, everyone is so keen to bring a claim.”

That sounds a bit over-justified to me, the idea that ‘everyone is so keen to bring a claim’. Who in heck wants court, stress, risk, expense, time-absorbing meetings, public reporting, potential ridicule ..?

Does he perhaps mean, ‘everyone is so keen to go for a settlement after they’ve spoken to me’?

Sherborne must have been absolutely shitting his pants as it became clear that ANL weren’t going to settle, if he was working on a no win no fee basis. He’s not an idiot, he must have realised their case was incredibly weak.

no wonder he was so aggressive at the trial, absolutely desperate to get something to stick.

I have no sympathy for him at all, but this must be making him sick as a dog.

Did she make a 'strong case' when Harry first brought what was an obvious crock of a case?

Or did she wait for his catastrophic failure?

Marina always seems to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before taking any sort of stand.

Does 'no win no fee' means the legal firm does not get a penny if the claimants lose? A case this complex would have involved months of prep work by assistants and researchers. Someone has to pay them. Would Sherborne be on the hook for this? Or does the 'fee' refer only to the time he personally spent making the case in court? What about his consultation fees, rumoured to be north of £500 an hour?

Surely he can't have been doing months of work for nothing? I get that he loves publicity and is a bit of a showman, but even so he must have known this case was very risky from the start. Hard to think he'd have worked entirely for free just for the headlines.

She also takes so many bloody words to say it.

It depends on the mechanism. In a conditional fee arrangement, the lawyer takes on the risk that if they lose, they don;’t get paid (but if they win they will claim around 25% more than their fees saw a success bonus).

If the claim is funded by a separate specialist litigation funder then the funder pays the solicitors and it is the funders who take on the risk of getting no return on their investment or the reward of a large success fee if they win (I’m talking generally - every funder has different terms).

A big and expensive case like this was probably funded by a specialist funder, but that’s just an educated guess. They can exercise quite a lot of influence on what happens to protect their investment. In a recent group claim against Mastercard for example, which targeted a £14bn payout from Mastercard, the claimants agreed to settle for a payment of £200m. The funder tried to block the settlement on the basis that a £200m settlement wouldn’t give them anywhere near enough of a return on their investment of £45m in funding the claim. It wasn’t successful, but it demonstrates how commercially-minded the funders are.

Elton John is devoted to research into a cure for AIDS, he has made no secret that this is where his funds are used.

He can indeed have been doing all that for nothing because the flip side of no win no fee is your fees are much higher (called a success uplift!), it is absolutely a gamble, although one in which a litigation specialist probably knows more than any of the other players.

Also (barrister in the family) it is solicitors who will be getting the lions share of that money not barristers.

If the case cost 20m a barrister might get a million although probably a lot less. This is obviously a lot of money for one person but is only 19/20ths of the total costs.

I’ve wondered about the ethics of a barrister seemingly ‘touting’ for business directly from potential clients, as opposed to receiving briefs in the usual ways.

Once you've read one Marina Hyde article, you've read them all.

Same sneery supercilious style.

I know she has her fans here but I've always found her massively overrated. Especially because, as I've said above, she always reserves her ire for 'safe' causes. So while she may come across as witty, controversial and sharp, in effect she's always 'punching down' which isn't the sign of a good satirist.

Anyway, back to Harry...