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

@bluegreygreenso, if I understand correctly, the judge is saying the claimants attempted to smear people’s reputation by accusing them of lying generally instead of giving specific statements which were untrue and then giving the people from ANL a chance to defend themselves. That is very poor behaviour and another reason why I am glad they have lost. I think the amount of legal costs are insane. When you think the difference that kind of money could make to a charity but this lot used it to pursue a vendetta.

Just on the insurance front (if I recall correctly) for very large sums as in this case, it won’t (or isn’t usually) covered by just one single insurer. Temple Legal would be the named insurer but it will underwritten by other specialist insurance providers to spread the risk.

No win no fee is in relation to claimants own costs, . The loser usually has to pay the winner costs if the claim is not upheld. A fool and his money etc.

There could be a separate issue if the claimants were not totally candid with their evidence and prospects thought.

Some will be Wiser after the event .

I know, but I can not believe that there will be no costs to the claiments.

Yes, that's how I understand it @JSMill (there's a lot of detail in that section, so I've only copied the summary paragraphs).

Re costs - ANL's costs include all the obvious legal costs, but there was also a huge amount of work involved in finding all the documents relevant to the case:

Associated’s evidence (principally the eleventh witness statement of Francesca
Richmond) describes a wide-ranging disclosure exercise carried out over approximately two years, in accordance with Associated’s EDQs and disclosure statement/schedules.
The search encompassed both hard copy and electronic sources and was directed to the issues raised ...

By way of overview, Ms Richmond’s evidence identifies that documents were searched for, collected and reviewed from a broad range of sources, including
(non-exhaustively): hard copy material at Crown offsite storage; material held at
Associated’s offices (including notebooks/diaries of pleaded journalists, legal
department files, cash payment records, payment-for-information forms and cuttings); cuttings obtained from the British Library; documents obtained from custodians; hard copy financial records at Iron Mountain; external adviser/legal department files; email data for 110 custodians; the Atex editorial content management system; editorial and financial shared drives; financial data in Agresso (including data restored from a back-up for searching); account information in Lotus Notes; scanned expense forms; call records (iTiger and Tangoe); and Dictaphone/microfiche tapes located in boxes from the Crown facility.

Ms Richmond’s evidence further records that Baker McKenzie reviewed almost 40,000 electronic documents returned by the searches, and that substantial hard copy review work was undertaken (including, as at October 2024, over 3,400 hours of hard copy review and manual review of large quantities of cash book entries, and the assessment of over 1,000 notebooks to identify ownership and date ranges).

In the July Judgment, when determining the Claimants’ disclosure application,
I summarised Ms Richmond’s evidence as including that 316 boxes from Crown and 6 boxes from Iron Mountain had been reviewed, and that 229 were found to contain nothing of relevance: see [142(4)].

At the stage of Ms Richmond’s eleventh witness statement, some 2,118 documents had been produced for inspection, including 432 hard copy financial records and 597 electronic financial records. Further disclosure has been provided since then.

As I understand the process, they can apply to Judge Nicklin for leave to appeal.

If he refuses leave, they can then apply directly to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal.

I don't see how they would be granted leave. Leave would usually be granted if there was an argument that the judge had made an error in law. From what I've read, it's very rare to grant leave to appeal based on a judge having made errors of fact.

Judge Nicklin's judgement was so careful and detailed that I don't see what basis there would be for appeal (as always, very happy for one of our legal posters to correct me).

This article says the insurance would cover the claimants own disbursements costs.

Given the clear cut verdict and the very sketchy evidence (inc the statement from Burrows) I imagine there could be enough there for the insurers to consider whether they have been misled.

There is also the possibility that if multiple ins companies have been involved in the underwriting there could be a split between those who are content to pay out and those that aren’t. Which would be a mess.

Without knowing the terms agreed by all parties though it’s just me chatting 😊

Guardian article from around an hour ago. This bit is interesting:

‘ANL are asking for an interim £9,950,624.37 payment. The claimants have offered an £8m interim payment.’

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/29/prince-harry-and-co-claimants-face-huge-legal-bill-due-to-insurance-shortfall

I have read she was assured by the others she’d never have to pay.

Nicklin can recommend that his professional body take a good look at the case and his conduct.
He can also make it clear that he doesn't believe it was handled professionally, he has already criticized the handling of the case.

@binkie163 It would be very odd if the judge made a complaint! Usually the judges remarks are considered a sufficient public rebuke. Others might complain of course.

For her sake, I hope she got that 'assurance' in writing.

Thanks @AnAutumnCrow

Guardian archive link https://archive.is/BVoz7

I don't know the basis on which the interim payment is calculated. I suppose £8m is reasonable when compared to £10m.

I think they would have promised DL the moon on a stick to get her on board. She was the one name that would really hurt the DM, the one name that would not only stick the knife in but give it a hard twist.

It does feel like it’s personal for many of the claimants doesn’t it? Like revenge or punishment.

There is a podcast on the Times with their royal editor and legal editor . I will have a listen later when my DH is at the pub quiz.
https://x.com/thetimes/status/2082512556896170083?s=46

Yes, certainly the case with Harry. He’s on his own personal media crusade.

The case should never have gone to Court. As soon as Burrows made it very clear a few years ago, that he didn’t write the statement, the claimants legal team should have taken notice. Such was the arrogance of the entire Research team and Lawyers, they persisted anyway. Saghani admitted to not seeing the statement being signed and relied upon Johnson, who was conveniently given an email address from her own Law Firm to look more superior. If that doesn’t set alarm bells ringing, then I don’t know what does. The Judge was scathing about her and rightly so. She did not seem to grasp the seriousness of what she had done. Allegedly she was given the boot from her law firm. Allegedly there is a serious allegation that is now in the hands of the SRA. It’s funny isn’t it, that the email account she gifted to Johnson has disappeared in its entirety! Well, that’s according to her former law firm.

If I were ANL, I would offer to exclude DL from any liability for costs, not because she deserves it, but to look like the good guy.

Possibly but let’s not forget that she was the other person on Harry’s ridiculous statement!

Wasn't DL offered an ‘out’ by ANL and she turned it down?

Personally, I don’t have all that much sympathy for her where this is concerned. I think she should be treated the same now as the other claimants.

I'm not sure they need to look like the good guy towards her now, JSMill ...
after all they did that before and look how she repaid them

IAmATorturedPoet is probably right that Doreen could have done ANL a lot of damage if her claims had been provable, but as it is all the harm has been to her own reputation

Excellent point!

Yes I think she sealed her own fate by putting her name to that statement.