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

They each have individual costs.

Judge Nicklin has additionally ruled that there are communal costs too - claims and costs in common - for which all claimants are jointly and severally liable.

Yes he would have a case as one of our legal eagles explained and it was also discussed on a podcast by barristers which a pp shared. ANL can set the costs against who they want, obviously it is easier to get the money from the wealthier individuals, they in turn can sue the ne'er do wells for their share. It is one of the risks of a case like this.

Exactly.

Each claimant is severally liable for individual costs, jointly and severally liable for common costs.

ANL can pursue each of them for the individual costs.
ANL can also pursue any one of them (or all of them) for the common costs. They will most likely pursue those who can pay.
Those who end up paying can in turn pursue their fellow claimants for the money.

We don't know how much will be awarded in costs, and whether Judge Nicklin will award indemnity costs to ANL.
We don't know what the ATE insurance company will agree to cover.
We do know that the claimants and their legal team were heavily censured in the judgement.

This.

They wanted GBs witness statement of March 2021 to be accepted without corroboration. Most of what the claimants said had no factual evidence attached either. It’s how the case was run.

That’s not quite the same as knowing the statements are going to be completely thrown on their heads by the witness in court who became a hostile witness. The judge makes very damning comments about GB. Appendix 3 of the judgement makes extraordinary reading! However the judge is not really there to comment on what the claimants might have guessed earlier. The witness was said by the judge to be “evasive, inconsistent, and argumentative” so no side gained much at all from GB.

However, I agree that the whole thing smacks of desperation to cling on to uncorroborated views to support the claimants views. The judge wanted evidence and they didn’t provide any via GB, just a substantial amount of hot air.

That’s not quite the same as knowing the statements are going to be completely thrown on their heads by the witness in court who became a hostile witness.

Isn't it a little bit obvious, when you have a statement in 2023 refuting the 2021 statement, and a statement in 2025 with independent lawyers saying that the 2021 statement signature is a forgery?

DS was already in November calling the new statement an attack on members of the legal team, and applying to use his evidence as hearsay only, so it really can't have been a complete surprise.

https://archive.is/YAjNq

ETA I wouldn't presume to suggest what Judge Nicklin should comment on. I was commenting myself on things that the claimants and their legal team clearly had information about some considerable time before the court date.

Who is EH?

Sorry @HoldMyWine - Elizabeth Hurley. Acronyms good for people slow of typing like me but not always clear 😊

They are all in the OP but we haven't really been talking about her for a while!

The claimants appear to have been surprised by the claimants’ own case, when required to present for court. Absolutely bizarre.

Unlike Harry I have faith in our judiciary . I don't think he ( Nicklin) will award costs on the basis of H making a rather foolish knee-jerk statement. I just don't. I suspect Judge Nicklin had the measure of H whilst the trial was going on.
That said , given the paucity of proof brought , I wouldn't blame him if he awarded ANL all the costs he can. I am not saying newspapers haven't done heinous things. But they are on a case by case basis. The NOTW case was entirely different to this one. Frankly, I'm tempted to say if he can award costs to stop - I'm looking for a good word here - chancers - or those with a grudge against the press in general wanting to bring ill thought out cases , whilst making sure those with a genuine complaint are not put off , he will have done a good job. That's from a self confessed layperson. Not sure if I've made myself clear here but I hope you all get the gist.

Honestly @BasiliskStare , Harry is so far up is own ass , he probably thinks he is not only head and shoulders above his fellow celebritie claimants but the whole judiciary too! , only have I seen one other example of such bull headed egocentric, self important attitude and that is from his uncle.

Thanks. I’d forgotten about her!

I'm tempted to say if he can award costs to stop - I'm looking for a good word here - chancers - or those with a grudge against the press in general wanting to bring ill thought out cases , whilst making sure those with a genuine complaint are not put off , he will have done a good job.

Totally agree @ Basilisk. One of the things that I’m so incensed about is that this was about a) greed and b) stopping the press printing things they didn’t want them too. The aren’t, and weren’t ever, victims. The entitlement and greed are outrageous.

On the subject of "who'll pay", it occurs to me that it'll be amusing if Harry suggests that he can't afford however much it is

There's been a lot of speculation about his financial poisition, and while I don't pretend to know it, there'll be a certain interest in whatever those who insisted he'd hit the jackpot in America have to say

I do find it hard to believe that he couldn't rustle up a few million.

Wonder if Harry will try to claim the costs awarded will be a vindictive reaction from Nicklin to being held to account for his "whitewash" judgement? At this point nothing would surprise me ...

I don't think someone who lives in a home allegedly worth something in the 8 figures could claim poverty when it comes to paying the costs of a civil case he actively chose to bring. Worst comes to worst, he can sell the McMansion.

But this is Harry and personal responsibility isn't a 'thing'.

Nicklin oversaw a previous attempt by H to sue the DM for defamation, after DM published that story saying H lied that he,'d offeref to pay for protection from the outset. Nicklin found that the DM hsd a very good chance of proving their story correct.

In other word Nicklin has sussed that H is dishonest, and has a grudge against the DM that had him making up things to accuse them of. That might inform his decision regarding costs.

I don't think someone who lives in a home allegedly worth something in the 8 figures could claim poverty when it comes to paying the costs of a civil case he actively chose to bring

Neither do I, @IcedPurple, but that may not stop him trying if it suits

After all it would hardly be any more ridiculous than much else he says ...

The problem for claimants who bring expensive court actions and lose is that, unless they pay what they’re told to pay by the judge asap, their financial privacy starts to be eroded.

The judge may entertain arguments of ‘I can’t pay all that / need time to pay’, but he will likely want to see proof of means from claimants, and much of this could become public.

(I’ve seen a losing claimant being told to supply actual bank statements and mortgage documents to the court - this was for costs re: a judicial review loss. When he didn’t, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest and he legged it to the Med somewhere. It was all very unedifying.)

I’m wondering if Charles (Rex not Spencer) will have much of the final sum quietly paid and made to disappear, to head off the embarrassment of H whining (via Sherborne) about his finances and potentially letting cats out of bags. Maybe this has already been discussed at Highgrove.

At what point do costs awards become enforceable? (ie, bailiffs can be sent in)

@AnAutumnCrow I think KC paying costs for his court bothering son would go down very badly. They must have learned something from the VG case. What I could envisage is some fluff where H pays his costs and KC happens to decide he'd like to pay the Hamlets' school fees for a while, But that is utter speculation on my part. I'd like to see H held to account for his share of the costs and not be bailed out by anyone , not because of schadenfreude , but because I think it's high time he learned that his actions have consequences, with which he has to live. In many ways I think he just hasn't grown up.

Would it be public knowledge who paid the costs? If not then the King could, if he so chose, make whatever contribution he wants and I imagine that, assuming it's all paid off quietly, people will just assume it was a mix of the richest claimants.

I’m putting Harry to the side one moment to think about the other claimants ! Excluding Elton and DL , what about the others? , they all are responsible for paying their share, can Sadie frost actually afford it? , she did not work that much in her hay day and was mostly famous as Jude laws wife , I can’t imagine she has millions laying around to pay . Elizabeth Hurley is similar? Although I imagine HG might help her out ! And the other man ( I’m sorry his name has slipped my mind ) he was just an mp wasn’t he? , certainly not rich by thier standards.🤔