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

Same. The next big milestone is costs - how much it will be and how it has been agreed to be divided amongst the claimants - and who and how each will
stump up their share.

I assume only lawyers are needed, @Lunde, though I suppose the claimants could turn up if they wanted.

The order talks about deadlines for agreeing a draft order, and then filing a hearing bundle and skeleton arguments, none of which need the claimants.

Can anyone tell me what a 'joint bundle of authorities' means in this section?
The Claimants shall, by 10am on Monday 27 July 2026, file a joint bundle of
authorities

And does this mean the claimants may be able to apply for permission to appeal once the Consequentials Hearing is over?
Any application for permission to appeal Paragraph 1 of this Order is adjourned to be dealt with, unless the Court otherwise directs, on the basis of written submissions following the Consequentials Hearing. Time for any application for permission to appeal to the Judge, or for any Appellant’s Notice, be extended to a date to be fixed at the Consequentials Hearing.

Hi, I work in the Mumsnet digital & research team. We’re exploring a short Topic Guide to help people who are new to the Royal Family topic understand how this part of Mumsnet works and find their feet.

We want the guide to accurately reflect the community, not impose our own ideas about how it should work. So we’re asking Mumsnetters to help shape it.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5554759-what-should-new-joiners-know-about-the-royal-family-topic

A bundle of authorities is a big file containing all the cases the parties are using in their case, usually with an index showing which bit of the case they are using.

UK law uses precedent, sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here, so if something happened in a previous case which helps you, you cite it as one of your authorities.

Unless the litigation is really really bad tempered both sides put together the authorities bundle so the judge only has one to deal with.

I doubt there is a case from the 19c saying wastrel Princes never pay their costs but you never know, or at least I don't.

Thank you @NormalAuntFanny - I did know about precedent and quoting cases, but hadn't seen the term used before.

Love the idea of there being an old case of wastrel Princes!

@Lunde This is Cressida Bonas though! Wealthy family and she’s never struggled for money. It’s not usual for high profile clients to turn up to a costs hearing. They might want to listen but certainly won’t say anything as they are not witnesses. It’s about whether the costs are reasonable, essentially, and then who is responsible for ANL’s costs. Often the claimants get costs awarded against them as claimants. How they pay and who pays does not usually concern the court and if someone bankrupts themselves, they should have thought of that in the first place.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7w6V4WShGczVCURYq2qPTD?si=5pckPEaAQM2_IbfVi-G6sg&utm_source=copy-link

Just listened to this podcast which hives a great overview of the case.

Gives* although i do imagine this case has given some hives🤭

What happens if you're ordered to pay £X within 14 days and you simply can't?

CCJ I guess?

No - this was only an example of Harry's legendary meanness with money. He will likely expect someone else to pay for him.

Interestingly the two KC's from the podcast I've linked are of the opinion there will be an appeal to the SC, so perhaps costs will be stayed until any appeal is heard, which of course could possibly be a couple of years away.

OMG is there no end to this?

I realise that appeals have to be based on processes rather than the evidence already heard - or rather might have been heard, since there wasn't any - but can't understand what faults they can find in that process after what read like a very well considered judgement

Unless they're going to harp on around the basis of Harry/Doreen's ridiculous statement I suppose, but would accusing the judge of a whitewash again really get them permission to appeal?

It would be to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision not the Supreme Court (that’s the next and final tier of appeal). Normally you have 28 days from the date the judgment was handed down to apply to the judge that delivered your judgment for permission to appeal. If they say no (and they generally do) then you have another 28 days to apply to the appeal court directly.

Sometimes costs will be sorted out and potentially even paid by the time the appeal is granted, and sometimes not. But they can get sorted out following an appeal decision - including parties having to repay costs awards if the decision is reversed.

That sounds a bit bonkers.
Would all claimants have to be in agreement? (I'm thinking they would). Unless they have good grounds for appeal I imagine the likes of Elton John would just like done with the whole thing, it's been dragging on for years.

Yes, it would be throwing good money after bad wouldn't it. The podcast is well worth a listen, the hosts are very informed, thought the jugement was spot on & PH & DL statement outrageous.

Yes sorry - Im SC obsessed thanks to Scottish Women😉

I could see Harry speaking. But it would be throwing more more money away

The KC'S from the pod said appeal courts are quite "wide" in allowing an appeal. Although on what grounds they could appeal...well🤷

I’ll certainly give that podcast a listen 🙏 (after the football of course 😁)

I dont see what possible procedural or technical point of law could be used as the basis of an appeal here. The judgement seemed meticulous.

Quite, the court of appeal is very severe on grounds and losing 97-0 in a tightly reasoned judgement isn't one of them.

Apart from PH I can imagine others in this case would want to just put it behind them.

But PH being PH - I mean who knows if him & The Bouffant One would persue this?

The statement gave a great insight into the thought processes, watch this space...

Will the costs be divided according to how many articles each of them brought, or how many hours of court time each person had, or by some other formula?

To appeal there usually has to be an arguable case that the first judgement was wrong and that there must be a compelling reason for the appeal and a real prospect for success. Not sure any of that applies here. Can someone summarize why the KCs thought they could appeal?