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

I think if nothing else ANL have won a stunning victory, their name is clean and they have the moral high ground.

Any subsequent case would risk that, there might be embarrassing revelations in discovery, they might lose etc etc. And it would cost.

Better to do nothing and leave a cloud of suspicion over their opponents than risk further action.

Exactly. And use it to argue for indemnity costs for this case.

i read somewhere about Andy Burnham wanting to look at Levenson 2. This result might knock that on the head, and he might want to avoid hanging out with Nazi funded groups

ANL wil just need to pursue for costs and draw a line under the whole thing.

The undercurrent that I picked up …all the other newspapers were supporting ANL ! , it really stands to reason that they didn’t want them to fail because they don’t want the freedom of the press to be limited for themselves either! , I think Harry and the other claimants purpose was clear and has lost them a lot of goodwill with otherwise friendly outlets.

Re reading Harry's statement. His argument seems to be that bendy other newspapers are found guilty, a completely separate newspaper must be guilty. Does he want us to apply that logic to his family?

I hope so @Justdancevance.

Hugh Grant, of course, was campaigning for Andy Burnham in Makerfield, and has since been vocal about controlling the press.
https://archive.is/54W2P

An interesting recent encounter with Hugh Grant
https://archive.is/BC99x

@MrsLeonFarrell That did come across as the line of thinking. Other papers were found guilty so this one must be. The difficulty was evidence. The papers published stories but the sources were not illegal. Just because Harry and others didn’t like the stories, it did not make the newspaper guilty of illeagal sourcing.

Apologies if this has been covered (and I'm sure it has) but when this week can we expect the financials to be published? I'm sure they said the end of July?

The Consequentials Hearing (the hearing where costs, and any other outstanding issues will be argued) is 29-20th July, so Wednesday to Thursday of this week.

I don't know just how quickly Judge Nicklin will give his judgement, but assume it will be within days this time (especially if it's typical that an amount is paid within 14 days).

I recall reading something along the lines of Judge Nicklin giving a statement of some sort at the close of play on Thursday, but i doubt that would be a full ruling - more some sort of preliminary decision?

I’m very much hoping for some reporting/discussion of the submissions in order to try and follow the differential liabilities iykwim.

The previous pre trial costs hearing was 2 months between hearing and judgement. A lot has happened since then so would expect this to be quicker. 2 days isn’t a lot of court time.

And there were costs hearing(s) prior to the nine-week long court case itself earlier in the year. These already involved ‘costs judge’ Judge David Cook alongside Judge Nicklin.

Excuse the link dump but I’m tired and will forget otherwise.

‘A costs and case management conference (“CCMC”) took place before Mr Justice Nicklin and Judge David Cook in the misuse of private information claims against Associated Newspapers Limited (“ANL”) on 26th and 27th of November 2024.’
https://www.taylorhampton.co.uk/daily-mail-phone-hacking-claims-progress-through-the-court/
And you can still sign up as a hacking client vs ANL!

Then this was reported on Jan 24th 2025: ‘In a ruling on Friday following a preliminary hearing in November last year, Mr Justice Nicklin and Judge David Cook said the two sides had proposed to spend more than £38.8m in the legal claim combined, with the claimants proposing to spend around £18.7m.’
https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/planned-costs-of-harry-and-mail-publisher-legal-battle-excessive-judges-rule/

And here’s a smidgeon of background on ‘costs judge’ Judge Cook with a little of what he thinks of post-2013 costs procedure rules:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/costs-judge-warns-on-budgeting-delays/5048447.article

Thanks @AnAutumnCrow - no worries re the link dumping. One reason I post links I know I've posted before is so that I can definitely find them again!

I knew that there was a second judge involved in the pre-trial costs hearings (both judgements linked above), but stupidly hadn't realised he was a costs judge.
That does make sense. I wonder if he will also be involved in the Consequentials Hearing - and if he will be the person dealing with any specialist costs hearings if needed.

Apologies. Got the date wrong yesterday. It was a year ahead plus of the trial.

So it starts at 10.30- anyone pre register?

I'm at work so will be relying on this thread if anything interesting happens.

Do we think anyone will appeal (the link below says there will be the option to appeal)

https://www.itv.com/news/2026-07-28/duke-of-sussexs-case-against-mail-publisher-to-return-to-court-after-ruling

Placemarking to follow along

Ditto!

I’m here!

I was reading interesting comments about allocated costs. ANL will have spent the most on the Harry allegations so his bill may be tbe largest, depending on the courts cost hearings go.

As he’s not resident and could easily skip out then ANL could go after any of his U.K. assets or go after him when he comes back to the UK, which might then make coming back to the UK tricky.

ANL could apply to US courts which is a longer process

@bluegreygreen thank you for your clarification above - I got that wrong. Still an unwarranted slight on Nicklin I think but not for the reason I mentioned - Thank you 💐

Pulling up my chair in anticipation.

Although feeling slightly like someone going to watch a hanging.

I’m up ! Just in time!! 🕰️

Good morning all.

Did anyone register to join the hearing?

I've been refreshing the Sky News link from the OP but they don't seem to have reactivated it as they did for the judgement - the link is here in case they do later
Original Sky News page

Yes, @Justdancevance - that would refer to the individual costs.
Each claimant will be severally liable for individual costs, and then jointly and severally liable for the common costs.

ETA if anyone sees a live feed please do link

Ooh, a nice hanging...

i couldn’t find ‘who threw that rock’ who had to use this instead