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

Does anyone have an idea on the process and timings for the costs. Is it a negotiation between solicitors
or a decision made by judge? Will it be made and published after the court hearing next week - or is that just the initial stage of a longer process?

As I understand it, the parties were to lodge an agreed order with the Court by 17th, or a draft order marked up with their differences if they couldn't agree.

Assuming they couldn't agree (quite likely), they have to file their skeleton arguments by 24th.

There are then 2 days for the hearing, 29th-30th July.

The judge previously (in a pre-trial judgement in January) put a limit on the potential costs that could be awarded (budget) above the amount that had already been spent (pre-budget costs).

It's possible (some say quite likely) that given the criticism of the Claimants, including the finding of 'dishonesty' and 'deception', ANL will argue for indemnity costs (i.e. for all their costs to be awarded) and might well be successful.

Judge Nicklin will make a judgement after the hearing next week.

There were some interesting comments on the possibilities in the Times piece from 10th July that @HoldMyWine linked upthread - the share token has expired but some of the comments of a senior costs judge were copied:

Nicklin will hear evidence from both sides for two days from July 29, and is likely to make a decision at the end of the hearing, Campbell said.
“He will most likely ask for 60 per cent of the pre-budget costs, then about 90 per cent of the costs going forward because they have been scrutinised by the court,” Campbell added. “So from my rough calculations that means there will be a payment on account of about £10 million, that is due within 14 days of the decision.”
...
The rest of the costs will be dealt with in a year or so by a specialist costs judge, Campbell said.”

Did anyone apply to attend the hearing remotely?

This is interesting - two shows would pay his legal fees.

Wonder what Harold will do to make a quick buck to pay for his share?

Back up singer?

He could juggle at the same time! 😂

THANKYOU - so if the DM were referencing £50million - £10million needs to be found imminently and the additional £40million the following year.

That’s a vast amount of money to be hanging over your head. I wonder how much the insurance will be pay out, how much the premium was and if beyond that the insurance company will be wriggling to find criteria where they don’t pay out?

Sell photos of the HAMLETS’ faces ?

I looked at the costs from the pre-trial judgement and have them somewhere - will look them out.

The link shows the pre-trial costs ruling.

The 2 parties had already incurred costs, and paragraph 15 says that 'The parties were unable to agree their revised budgets and so the Court was required to set budgets for the remaining phases of the litigation.'

The incurred costs to that point (pre-budget costs) were:
Claimants £4,074,113.66
Defendant £8,125,379.90
Total £12,199,493.60

The future costs estimated by each party were:
Claimants £14,634,647.40
Defendant £11,724,902.00
Total £26,359,549.40

The court approved further costs (budget costs) for each party were:
Claimants £4,084,000
Defendant £4,445,000
Total £8,529,000

As I understand it, the costs that can currently be awarded are the pre-budget costs and the budget costs, unless ANL applies for indemnity costs (i.e. the actual amount the trial has cost them).
If they do apply, Judge Nicklin may award these costs given his critique of the claimants.

Pre-trial costs ruling

I do hope Judge Nicklin allows indemnity costs because the difference between budget costs and estimated future costs was significant. It seems totally unreasonable that ANL should have to pay the difference between budget and actual costs!

If I've understood correctly, the suggestion of £50million was total costs for both sides, not ANL costs.

What if H declares bankruptcy in the US? Does it get him out of the UK bills?

However horrid the bill would be, would his share of it actually bankrupt him?

From previous posters, he has a big mortgage, annual security bill of c. $3 million, bills from the RAVEC case ( if I remember correctly), and the upcoming court case with Sentebale. Not to mention high property taxes. He has to pay public school taxes even if his kids go to private. Plus water bills for his estate and electric bills for the AC and his house staff.

I know nothing about US law so no idea if this is even possible ?

Montecito was held in some sort of property trust that was registered at the same lawyers as HAM and Archewell etc.

There is I believe a mortgage of around $9.5 million.

I don't know if such a move would protect the house having to be sold for UK legal fees or if it's a pre-separation move.

I don't know, @Mylovelygreendress, but a "community property state" means that, with exceptions for personal gifts, inheritances, etc, any property acquired during marriage belongs to both regardless of who's name is on the deeds

And incidentally so do any debts ...

Edited to add I hadn't heard it's held by a trust, @Lunde, and couldn't say if this would make a difference ... though if as many expect Charles coughs up the question may be moot

I would just hope she doesn’t try to use it as collateral for expanding As Never now the Netflix tap is turned off. She seems to be one of those people who think success is just around the corner - or so her PR keep telling us

why didn’t she go for wine rather than jam ?

I’m trying to imagine falcon crest with Jane Wyman/angela chanting presiding over a jam empire - it’s just not the same.

Her As Ever posts gives me the vibe that she’s trying to show Charles she could the the Boss Woman CEO of Duchy Oriiginals now that the cooking show has failed

I cannot believe that even with their vast expenses between H's inheritances and the Netflix / Spotify / Spare money they don't have enough to stump up for H's share of the ANL costs. Which he should have thought of.

I think they’re missing a trick as according to chat GPT, Sussex is one of the best and upcoming areas to produce English sparkling wine. They could have Sussex ‘champagne’

She did do wine at one stage? Last summer there was a rosé. But at $90 + shipping for 3 bottles - it didn't exactly fly off the shelves.

Sticking your label on a box of generic plonk versus Clarkson’s farm with wine.

Netflix would love a Clarkson’s farm style show.

I was looking at the costs issue again, as I kept seeing people referring to the claimants being 'jointly and severally' liable for costs, and wasn't entirely sure of the basis for it.

It comes from a pre-trial hearing in December 2025. ANL applied to Judge Nicklin for an order that, in the event of the Claimants being held liable for costs, they should, as well as being severally liable for the individual costs, be held 'jointly and severally liable with each of the other Claimants ordered to pay costs for the Common Costs of the Claims'.

This was granted, on the basis that the claimants' cases were based not only on their own specific allegations but also on a set of common allegations spread across similar cases that were used as a common foundation of their claim.

This was also the hearing where Judge Nicklin pointed out that the claimants needed to understand the consequences of the way the litigation was being conducted:
31. In our judgment it is imperative that the parties and in particular the individual Claimants have the clearest possible understanding as to the consequences of the way in which this litigation is being conducted. If that means the individual Claimants need to reassess their ATE cover that can only be in their own best interests. It is particularly important that this issue is addressed at this point as substantial costs have already been incurred and the parties will soon be incurring more substantial costs in preparation for the trial next year.

Pre-trial hearing December
(This was before the costs hearing discussed above)