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 don't think this has been posted already - apologies if so

Not the verdict - article.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16010567/Prince-Harry-phone-hacking-bill-millions-Daily-Mail-vindicated.html

And the article above ends with...'Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to return his judgment at a later stage.' That doesn't read as today or tomorrow to me.

Thanks @BasiliskStare

Archive link is here: https://archive.is/V8CS0

So ANL, as expected, have asked for costs on an indemnity basis.
Also, as expected, they have quoted Judge Nicklin's warnings to the lawyers about the conduct of the case, and about the fact that some of the most serious accusations were, in his words 'either not put to the witnesses at all or only partially put'.

AMW also referred to the delays in disclosure by the claimants, which I'd forgotten, and for which their lawyers received a significant rebuke in one of the pre-trial hearings.
Mr White said Prince Harry's lawyers 'persistently refused' to hand over documents gathered by its research team for scrutiny – a standard part of the court process – and were tardy in producing other material.

DS argued that it would be 'unjust' for Judge Nicklin's to award indemnity costs (doesn't feel like a good argument to start by suggesting Nicklin would be unjust, given PH and DL's outburst).
He admitted that 'if one combs through the judgment, it is possible to identify instances where the court expressed some concern about the conduct of the litigation in a particular respect.'
I don't think you need to comb too carefully, and I don't think the court's concern is qualified by 'some' or only related to a 'particular aspect' of the litigation.

He also says the claimants 'will bear personal liability for Associated's costs in excess of their [insurance] cover'.
Yes, that's what happens when you pursue a case with insufficient evidence, and lose. The judge warned you on several occasions about the evidence needed, and even warned you about the costs and the cover needed.

This for good measure …

And he explained how Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence were able to continue their denigration of the newspaper with an extraordinary statement shortly after Mr Justice Nicklin's ruling, which they described as 'a complete and obvious whitewash

It has my approval! 😁

"Mr White (for ANL) said elements of some of the most important claims, that Mr Dacre and other senior executives lied on oath to the Leveson Inquiry into Press standards, were 'either not put to the witnesses at all or only partially put'
^He said: 'All of this was done with the benefit of absolute privilege and in the glare of full publicity, courted by and on the claimants' behalf'"^

So Anthony White's effectively saying that they sneaked out a claim/smear without testing it in court, presumably in some hope of making Dacre look bad to the judge in the hope of a more favourable outcome?

If so that seems pretty shabby to me, and surely Sherborne would have known it's not how things are supposed to be done?

Thank you for the link @BasiliskStare and @bluegreygreen for the archive.

AW is, quite rightly, not holding back in putting his case for costs on an indemnity basis and it does sound like his argument for indemnity costs is far stronger than the claimants argument against.

I think PP have covered off the key points but I did eye roll at this statement:

In documents submitted to the court for today's hearing, the claimants said their allegations against the Mail 'were neither speculative nor weak'.

Yet every single claimant lost every single one of their claims.

Yes, @Thedom - good to have that on record in court, given that Judge Nicklin's has no other way of commenting on it.

This was the warning given to the claimants' legal team by Judge Nicklin at the end of the November hearing, when he was very critical of their delays in producing documents:

I have narrowly been persuaded by the Claimants that I should not make an unless order*, at this stage. Whilst there is obvious urgency, in view of the trial date, this is not an instance of a party defying an order of the Court. The Claimants have raised the issue of the extent to which the Research Team’s documents are within their control. I have ruled that the assessment that they made was erroneous. There is no basis upon which to conclude that the Claimants will not now comply with the order that will be made requiring a proper search of the Research Team’s documents to be made and appropriate disclosure to be provided. The Court has received assurances that the
Research Team will cooperate to enable a proper search to be made. The sanction of striking out the Claimants’ claims would, at this stage, be disproportionate. The impending trial date means that this task must be completed quickly, and the Court is likely to be unsympathetic to any delay or non-compliance. Ultimately, the Court will achieve compliance with its orders. If that requires a sanction to be imposed, then that may well be the next step. As I say, at this stage, I see no reason to anticipate non-compliance on the part of the Claimants.

*An 'unless order' is apparently an order that requires a specific action which, if not complied with by the specified date, has an automatic penalty (often of the claim being thrown out).

@Puzzledandpissedoff It's very interesting to read the section of the judgement that deals with this. (For several reasons, I haven't read the whole judgement yet, just a few small sections, but I'm working my way through it. I have read this section.)

Judge Nicklin deals with it in its own section, as it is separate to the claims but very important. I put a quick summary earlier in the thread but will repost here (hope no-one minds).
In effect he said that they didn't put the allegations directly as they should have done, to allow them to be answered fairly.

My previous post:

One section I have read is the 'Leveson Lies' section [1574]–[1604].
Judge Nicklin is extremely critical of how this was dealt with in court by the claimants (i.e. by Sherborne).
The claimants accused three of the senior ANL people (Paul Dacre, Elizabeth Hartley and Peter Wright of lying to the Leveson board during the Inquiry).

The judge says that this is totally separate to the claims but that he is dealing with it because it is an extremely serious allegation. He points out that in simple fairness, for such an allegation they must put to each person the statement said to be false, the evidence that it is false, and the evidence that the person knew it was false when they said it.
This was not done in court. Except in one case, instead of pointing to specific statements, the claimants (i.e. Sherborne) talked about general criticisms of ANL's response to Leveson.

It's worth reading the whole section for the forensic way Judge Nicklin deals with the issue, but 2 paragraphs from the conclusion of the Leveson section:

1601. Standing back, the allegation of “Leveson Lies” has not been proved. The case as pleaded was that three witnesses knowingly gave false evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. By trial, that case had narrowed and, in some respects, shifted. In relation to Mr Dacre, the central pleaded allegation, including the allegation that he lied about phone hacking, was not squarely put. In relation to Ms Hartley, the relevant paragraph was squarely challenged. I accept that it was too broadly expressed and, with hindsight, should not have been included in that form; but I do not find that she knew it was false or intended to mislead the Inquiry. In relation to Mr Wright, the pleaded passage was not properly put as a lie, and the broader cross-examination did not prove that his Leveson evidence was knowingly false.

1602. In my judgment, the Claimants are open to criticism for the way in which the “Leveson Lies” allegations were pursued. The allegations were extremely serious. Yet, save in relation to the particular paragraph in Ms Hartley’s witness statement, they were not consistently anchored to identified statements which were put to the relevant witness as deliberate falsehoods. In significant respects the case shifted from the pleaded allegation of lies to broader criticisms of Associated’s inquiries, disclosure and corporate response to the Leveson Inquiry. This is not how allegations of this seriousness should be advanced.

Chris Ship commenting about the costs. Is ship jumping ship?

I am guessing sherbornes rock star days are over. His reputation will be tarnished, I hope he gets dealt with by Nicklin. On the upside he still gets paid.

In effect (Nicklin) said that they didn't put the allegations directly as they should have done, to allow them to be answered fairly

Exactly, @bluegreygreen, and while unprovable smears are very much H&Ms' MO, this is what I meant in saying that Sherborne must have known it's simply not the way things should be done

Same with the "Leveson Lies" allegations, where once again insinuations were made without evidence to back them up
I realise Harry - and possibly others - may never have been happy without their "day in court", but I don't imagine they're happy now anyway and really have to wonder how so much time came to be wasted on such a hopeless case

More from Chris Ship on X but not sure if this is live from court or from previous ruling

And this doesn't cover anything the claimants have spent. There is no way it is all covered by NWNF.

I'm finding the '6 of the 7 claimants say they have insurance cover' interesting.

Why, after the judge's warnings, would you not have insurance cover (and sufficient cover at that)?

Why the assumption that the one who doesn't is DL?

Maybe DL was persuaded by H that he’d cover her costs ? Speculation on my part

I assume because it must be prohibitively expensive.

But what if a promise to pay was only verbal?

And this is all on the basis that insurance does pay out- if they have lied/misled/withheld any information then there might be no payout.

Iirc it was a very small firm that held the insurance - why was that?

@binkie163”dealt with by Nicklin” - how? In what way? DS is self employed. The Bar Standards Board deals with non professional conduct.

@RecoIIectionsMayVary I believe these are very specialist insurance companies and are not household names. It could be they could not get cover to the highest possible costs that might be incurred. Ie they were not insurable.

I do think ANL have a good argument to be awarded indemnity costs, but I gather there is also a 'reasonableness' argument wrt the amount claimed.

I saw this article in an insurance journal referenced on another site recently, and thought some here might find it interesting.

https://archive.is/cCR3C

Telegraph report https://archive.is/1cMMX

"The claimants would not make a decision about whether to appeal until a ruling had been handed down on the costs and consequentials hearing, Mr Bacon said"

@bluegreygreen
Can they appeal? Could it be dragged out for months do you think?

This is a link to a Times article that states the insurance provider is Temple Legal and provides some insurance info:

archive.ph/OK9rn

Would they know that the insurance will or wont payout at this stage? Its been quoted confidently today that they have an amount of insurance cover.