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

Jointly and severally liable?

Guess Elton, Liz and Harry will be shouting it, then. Especially Elton. Pocket Man?

Legally, I think it means that each of them can be held liable for all of the Common costs.

Practically, yes, I assume it means ANL, if awarded significant costs, could go after the claimants with means.

Gosh, that’s really interesting. I wonder if DL has it in writing that H will cover her share, but what if others don’t cough up?

Clearly EJ has the most money and I suspect will would happily ( well not happily but you see what I mean ) pay up for his husband , H and then EH probably next with most money . Not sure where SH , DL and SF would be if anything like the £50m is awarded. But , I'm getting ahead of myself , nothing has been awarded yet so it's moot at the moment.

ETA (this is shamelessly googled and an AI overview ) . Please anyone who knows what they are talking about correct me

AI Overview

The "deep pockets" rule in joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to recover 100% of compensation from any single at-fault defendant, meaning plaintiffs target parties with the most money or insurance even if their share of blame is tiny. You can review a detailed breakdown of the legal mechanics on Investopedia
How It Works
Full Recovery: The injured person can demand the entire payment from one wealthy defendant instead of chasing multiple smaller or missing parties. 1]
Shifted Risk: The danger of a co-defendant being broke or unable to pay falls on the remaining solvent defendant rather than the victim. 1]
Targeting Wealth: Large organizations, local governments, or insured professionals often pay the whole judgment despite low fault percentages. 1, 2]
Defendant Options
Right of Contribution: A party forced to pay the total amount can sue the other at-fault co-defendants to get back their proportional shares. 1]
Insolvency Risk: If the other co-defendants have no money or assets, the "deep pocket" defendant cannot recover those shares and absorbs the entire loss. 1]

I don't know any more than you do, @BasiliskStare (happy to hear from others) though I can see that practically that makes sense.

I think legally it means that all the claimants are held both collectively and individually responsible for the costs, so any one of them could be pursued for the entire amount, but it would make sense to go after the one(s) with funds.

(To be honest, if I were in ANL's position, I would be very tempted to say I'll go after each of them for a sixth of the awarded costs, given there were 6 cases against me.)

Depends on whether you want to fuck them over or get the money back, I guess. Half of them can't pay it.

Not saying I would do it - just that it would be tempting.

The claimants chose to pursue this case despite knowing that the (only?) witness claimed his statement was forged 3 years ago. They were warned of the difficulties they faced at the pre trial hearings last year.

I think that ANL should go after them all at the start - DL claimed some awful things about the journalist who pursued her son's killers, in fact in recent years she has appeared quite unlikeable. At the end of the day the ones without money will likely not pay much - EJ, PH and LH will pay the bulk as the wealthiest claimants.

There is also a mix off costs - there are the barristers and court costs but their were also 4 different firms of solicitors employed by the claimants

Happy to be corrected on this as IANAL but my understanding of "joint and severally liable" is that while they're all liable, ANL could go after any of them to cover shortfall if someone can't pay their share, as we know several of them can't. Despite everything, I think ANL will be sensitive to the optics of going after DL, especially after campaigning for justice for her son, given everyone knows she hasn't got that kind of money so they'll never get it from her if that's what they actually want.

I guess we will have to see. It's true Elton isn't a bank or everyone's sugar daddy so I can see why this might piss him off, but given he's got the means to make it all go away without having to remortgage or downsize, he might be tempted if Harry and Liz also make some kind of contribution. I don't know... it's easy to spend someone else's millions in my head! But the alternative just sounds much worse and if ANL can go after him when nobody else can pay, will he even have a choice?

To my simplistic mind they could each be told they were liable for a % , depending on their means. However , if this has already been said to be jointly and severally liable that wouldn't work , as well as the sheer impracticality of getting everyone to truly state their means.

I wouldn't like to see EJ completely on the hook for this when H and I would think EH have considerable money at their disposal. I suspect neither would he. Again , hypothetical until it's decided what the costs are. One thing I would say is it did sound as if H thought this was going to be an easy pay day ( from his statement ) and I think ANL would be within their rights to claim all the expenses for a claim which seemed flaky & existing in some of the claimants' heads rather than in scrupulous fact.

I wish I knew how to archive this article.
" The Prince and the Paper " It is very interesting and the frustration, and at times incredulity, of Nicklin leaps from the page. There's a fair bit of background on Johnson and Burrows which bares scrutiny. Also Elton shooting himself in the foot by saying Farrow was fired due to giving unauthorised information to journalists thus confirming the Mail's testimony. Well worth a read. It sums up all the dodgy stuff!

I thought the witness for the claimants changed his position during the trial. That was widely reported. It was a key issue but not sure the claimants barristers knew before the court case.

I have zero sympathy for DL or the others, it was a vindictive, vexatious claim driven by greed. Zero credible evidence reported (not privy to private papers) luckily for h and DL Nicklin seems an honest, fair man and won't seek to punish them for grandstanding and maligning his reputation, I suspect he knew at the end of the trial what the cost outcome would be. The claimants were warned.

I hope ANL bankrupt those who can't pay or hit EJ for the lot and let him sue/bankrupt his friends.
I also hope ds and the rest of the legals are hauled up in front of their professional bodies. They were playing high stakes poker and lost.
EJ won't earn 50m from 2 gigs!
An example needs to be made about frivolous suits tying up valuable court time. Hit them with fines on top of costs.

The case was filed in October 2022.

Gavin Burrows said he first heard that part of the case was based on his (2021) statement in 2023 in media reports. At that point he contacted ANL and wrote a statement for them, saying that the 2021 statement was false.

Presumably that 2023 statement will have been available to the claimants as well, through discovery.

Gavin Burrows then wrote a witness statement for court, with independent lawyers, in 2025.

So the claimants and their legal team will have known for 2 years before the case came to court that there was a major issue with their primary witness.

I would suggest it is possible some of them knew there was an issue with that witness's testimony prior to 2023.

ETA I first started these threads in November 2025, because I couldn't understand how the claimants could use his evidence as 'hearsay evidence', as they were applying to do at that point.

I absolutely cannot see EJ bankrupting the child of his close, dead friend, with the knock on effects on said friend's innocent grandchildren, or the mother of a young man murdered in a racist attack or anyone else. As galling as it might be for him if he's hit with the biggest bill, I can't see him setting out to ruin anyone out of spite when he's worth several hundred million and brought the exact same claims.

EJ is/was well known for being extremely spiteful.
He has already refused to bankroll h. He famously fell out with Diana when she wouldn't do what he wanted.
He gives generously to his charities but I doubt he will be happy to bail out the others. Of course ANL will choose who pays not the claimants.

EJ has also been very good friends with EH for years. More so than H I would say. Anyway , immaterial until costs are awarded. I am sure there are journalists itching to get whatever information there is on this. 😊

As @binkie163 said , Diana and Elton had a huge falling out in the mid 90s . I think it was to do with a book ?
Also , didn’t Elton find out that HAM had criticised him following their stay in S. France in 2019 . They certainly haven’t been seen together socially in recent years .

EJ is/was well known for being extremely spiteful.

Really? How so? He did Candle in the Wind for Diana, he must have cared for her when she died.

Would he not worry about his reputation if he let or caused people to go bankrupt?

If I remember correctly they only made up when Gianni Versace died .

Why would it affect EJ reputation if anyone goes bankrupt? They are all adults with agency who chose that course of action and are personally responsible for their own costs.
Except possibly DL who h apparently said he wouldn't see her out of pocket. I wish her luck crow barring h's wallet open.
Being a millionaire does not mean you take on everyone's debts because you worked harder and was more successful than the others.

Edited to add that hugh Grant is a millionaire and started this mess with hacked off, maybe he should pay.

I agree he's not obliged to. I just don't know if people will see it that way. He'd definitely be unwise to sue any of the others if it came to it; they don't have the money so it would only be to ruin them and I can't see people getting on board with that when he's worth hundreds of millions.

Would he even have a case? If they're joint and severally liable, he can be made to pay; if he's liable, can he make a claim of someone else?

HG ducked out - expressing regrets - for financial reasons.

Typical!! , starts the bowl rolling , winds up the convenient suspects, let’s them go !
then vanishes like the slimy toad he is!! 🙄

I don't follow... Hugh Grant is still on the board of Hacked Off?