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

Thanks poet! , yes this seems very relevant and similar in multiple ways!!
although I can’t imagine that his proof was anywhere as bad as Sherbornes …every thing he acused ANL of seems to be a confession of his and his complainants behaviour!

I thought that Harry has said he will see that she isn’t out of pocket for any of the costs so if they did make this offer it would just be helping him not Doreen.

I think DL is becoming a classic example of how the complete veneration of "lived experience" is a misstep in addressing systemic injustices.

Because having lived experience doesn't make you smart or compassionate or objective or fair. Not by itself.

Involving people with lived experience of issues is only part of the solution to them, but at the moment there's almost a fetishization of lived experience in the charity and social sector.

@TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis That’s completely correct. Often these people cannot see the bigger picture and are given too much influence. They have had something terrible happen to them but it does not make them suitable as law makers. Or even knowing how to conduct themselves in the public arena.

“Fame” seems to do odd things to people. Everyone in this case has used the press and benefitted from the press at some stage of their careers. Who would know Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley without press photos? They want their pictures in the press or want the press to campaign for them - then they want nothing to do with them. DL in particular had a lot of press support for her campaigning.

I think everyone should be careful about alleging misconduct and it seems the claimants did not have evidence but ploughed on anyway.

Anyway - day 2 will be interesting.

Reading the reports, if Nicklin does award costs on an indemnity basis, my reading is that given their public comments H and DL would find it hard to appeal this decision if they do not also appeal the original judgment (assuming they are granted permission). Is that right?

Harry has said he will see that she isn’t out of pocket for any of the costs

All very vague.

Harry is known to be tight with money so unless she got a written legal assurance that he would pay all costs in full, I certainly wouldn't take that to the bank.

Maybe that is the main reason she was the only one who signed her name to Harrys’ scathing statement.

Reading about the judgement of the Winehouse case costs while their own cost hearing is taking place must be difficult for the claimants. They should be steeling themselves for a similar outcome unless they can show the £34m was an unreasonable spend.

I wonder why the insurance was only for £16m? Was it because they had estimated (guessed) that was how much the defence team costs would be and, if so, could they try to argue that some of the additional £18m was unreasonable?

Or were they limited to £16m of cover because either a) that was all the insurer would provide - claimants need some skin in the game or cases without merit could be brought on a daily basis or b) was the insurance so expensive that the claimants decided they only wanted £16m cover because ‘we aren’t going to lose and don’t want to waste money getting a higher level of costs covered’.

£18m shortfall between the costs incurred and the insurance is a large deficit. And surely the claimants’ legal costs which must run into millions are not entirely on a NWNF basis? Who pays for all the people who put the case together? Surely at some point that person must have said ‘this isn’t likely to win, we can’t keep working on it as NWNF. Here are your options: find a way to settle or agree to pay future costs’?

New to this thread, haven't caught up yet, but adding to this, I lost a bit of respect for doreen when I read that she had Stephen reinterred without telling his father, who has no idea where he now lies buried.

The death of a child does terrible things to a family and I have enormous sympathy for them all, I wouldn't expect anyone in that situation to act like an angel, and obviously we don't know what went wrong in their marriage, but this seems an awful thing to do to another parent.

It’s interesting that for ANL the best outcome is all their legal costs are eventually recovered.

But what about the additional time and stress required over the years of their Sr team diverted away from growing their business? And the damage to the reputation of the company and employees as mud thrown sticks. I wonder if there is enough evidence of this being a vexatious, calculated, disingenuous claim sufficient for a counter claim?

Reading that changed my opinion of her more even than what she has said and done about this case

The fact the first he new about it was when distressing photos of the disturbed grave were circulated is cruel.

@Choux From the Press Gazette report (thanks @Lunde - archive link here
https://archive.is/9IRRQ ) the claimants do suggest that they matched their insurance to the estimated costs.

However, if you look at the figures for the estimated 'capped' costs, £16.2m (the cover they apparently had) doesn't cover that.

It certainly doesn't come near the uncapped estimate given at that pre-trial hearing, which you would have thought they would have wanted to cover, given that was the hearing when Judge Nicklin warned them they should make sure they had enough cover.

More superb posts, @TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis and @MeetMeOnTheCorner

As you both suggested, the lionisation of those who've suffered has the capacity to go horribly wrong, and overlooks the truism that someone can be both a victim of an appalling tragedy AND a deeply unpleasant individual

I'm not even sure that handing them awards, positions and the rest is a good idea if they lack the integrity to handle them as most would expect. As here, behaviour can come to light which renders the victimhood a bit thin, and this hardly does them any favours either - especially when it becomes clear that their principles are for sale

Re DL - I know some will feel that I'm harsh about her. I'm not intentionally so. I do have an appreciation of her background, and an awareness of some of the psychological trauma she may have (as we've discussed on previous threads).

However, I find it troubling how her independence and agency are often dismissed in ways that I don't believe would happen were she not female.

She is an articulate individual with means, who has previous successful experience of the legal system.
She has resources that most of us do not (parliamentary library access?).
She is a member of the House of Lords, and as such is in a position of responsibility in making laws, so has a moral duty to uphold the rule of law.

Despite this, after losing a case she has personally vilified a judge and accused him of being corrupt.
She also publicly denounced the fire service after they were risked their lives in a horrendous disaster.

I think @TheNinkyNonkyIsATardis and @MeetMeOnTheCorner's points are very valid.

Great post @Puzzledandpissedoff - took so long to think mine out that I missed yours, and you said it so much better!

I hope DM run a story explaining exactly that. And go after her for her fair share of the costs bill.

Absolutely

I don’t think you are harsh at all. I agree with you. That is why I am so disappointed in her. It’s difficult to lose a child but she must be accountable for her actions in this entire case. And her actions are disappointing

Surely the claimants are a group for the purposes of needing to pay costs? So if the full £34m is awarded they each need to find £5m. Most can get some of that from the insurance policy (as long as the insurers don’t have a get out clause they can exercise - insurers like to find a reason to void cover).

But each of them would need to stump up £5m or declare bankruptcy. I reckon Harry can afford his own £5m but, regardless of what he said, would he pay Doreen’s? Would Elton ride to the rescue? Who knows what conversations and promises were had and made before, during and since the trial but I imagine they are not a very cohesive bunch right now (and hopefully once the judgement is made info about their reactions will become public because I want to know). That ‘crazy’ judge eh?

I had no idea this had happened until I read it on here a little while back. It has randomly popped into my thoughts since then. I really struggle to comprehend how you could do something so cruel. Just heartbreaking for Neville.

@Choux there are individual costs and common costs.

The claimants are severally liable for their own individual costs.

They are jointly and severally liable for the common costs (a ruling from a pre-trial hearing). Legally, each of them is liable for the whole amount.

This means that ANL could pursue each of them for a proportion of the common costs, or could go after one of them (the one with greatest assets) for the entire amount. That person would then have to pursue his fellow claimants to recover their portion of the costs.

This means that ANL could pursue each of them for a proportion of the common costs, or could go after one of them (the one with greatest assets) for the entire amount. That person would then have to pursue his fellow claimants to recover their portion of the costs.

Good luck Elton John. But he is besties with Elizabeth Hurley so he would look after her, surely, if she couldn’t pay up?

I think they'll choose Harry!

My Google is saying Harry's costs could be 15m, but I can't access the link.