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'm pretty sure Elton is considerable richer than Harry.

EJ and DF are godfathers to EH’s son so yes, I’m sure he would cover any costs shortfall, or he may even be covering all of her costs.

Presumably they will also have their own legal bills ?

EJ was the plaintiff who brought in Harry and DL.

If he was the instigator I’m sure ANL would be best going after him and letting him recoup his costs from the others

Thanks for explaining as I have no legal knowledge.

I bet the ANL Claimants WhatsApp chat group would make for very interesting reading!

No problem - I only have the knowledge I have gleaned from quite a bit of reading over the course of these threads.

I can imagine there's quite a bit of friction at the moment.

There's a report in the Standard that Judge Nicklin will hand down his costs judgement in August (week of 17th).

It also says that SH had his barrister point out that he wasn't one of the bad boys, your Honour, and wasn't campaigning against ANL ...

https://archive.is/T1Acb

The only person in this who can afford to take this hit is EJ. I know pp have said he will potentially protect EH but the rest of them could potentially end up bankrupt. What silly people to lose so much money for the sake of such a weak case.

Whoever is prepared to sell it could probably raise the money.

The blame game has started. I wonder if any of them start snitching on the others, who said what, whose idea to manipulate dates, promises made if any. SH has fired the first shot.

This article says that the claimants KC said the request for an interim payment now of £9.9m is excessive and they should only pay £8m. When the total bill is £34m, a difference of £2m in the interim payment isn’t much. So why do the claimants only want to pay £8m now? That’s about 50% of the insured amount so is that the amount the insurers are ready to pay now? Are the claimants trying to kick the can down the road re making payments from their own funds?

Also their KC Mr Bacon said ANL’s incurred costs as of earlier this month were nearly £34.5 million, which “exceed its approved budget” by more than £18.6 million. What ‘approved budget’? You can’t launch a case against someone and then tell them they can only spend £16m on the defence if it. And the defendant can only provide an estimate upfront. If the ‘evidence’ put forward involves more work than expected to refute then they have to be able to spend what it takes to refute it.

yet given that SH is a barrister surely he realised the danger of proceeding with a sketchy claim. He also has a long association with Evan Harris from Hacked Off as they were Lib Dem MPs at the same time.

SH was also warned by the judge about his rights to avoid answering questions that might incriminate himself when he was questioned about those e-mails with Evan Harris/Hacked Off from 2016 where he expressed a desire to sue ANL whereas he claimed in his witness statement to have discovered UIG in 2022.

But no campaign against ANL 🙄

The trial about costs in 2024/25 looked at costs. Plus there are two levels of costs and ANL are going for the higher “indemnity” costs. This is like a full whack no holds barred costs. They want this higher sum because they won all contested elements and have not agreed to stop at the insured costs limit previously agreed. The higher amount claimed can now be agreed by the judge if certain conditions are met - and they could be.

Exactly @Lunde.

Given that background, it feels a little disingenuous to be distancing himself now.

As @MeetMeOnTheCorner says, there was a pre-trial costs hearing where there was an approved 'budget' of costs for each side above what had already been spent*.
This was partly because the costs were already very high.
The claimants are saying that they have organised their insurance on the basis of this approved budget.
It's worth noting that in his judgement for this hearing Judge Nicklin pointed out that the claimants should make sure they had sufficient cover, as the costs were considerable.

In the current hearing, ANL are asking Judge Nicklin to award costs on an indemnity basis, in other words to approve their entire costs to be paid by the claimants.
This can happen when there has been particularly poor behaviour on the part of claimants during litigation. Given Judge Nicklin's criticism of these claimants, including of the 'dishonest' scheme to obscure the time they became aware of the claim, ANL says it has a good reason to ask.

*If you really have some time to waste, I have a post on this thread dated 22/07 which goes through the figures.

bluegreygreen thank you for your wonderfully detailed and informative posts, I admire your incisive comments

Thank you ☺️

Agreed. I second the well deserved thank you 🙏

Here here!

And a third from me

And from me too! ❤️

A neat summary of SH’s desperate plea

Thank you all. I've really enjoyed the threads, and everyone's contributions.

Interesting, @HoldMyWine.

'It was not part of his case or plan to target ANL, its people or its papers.'
He just somehow found himself having taken them to court?

'At no time did he publicly ally his case to the other claimants.'
He just somehow found himself having taken them to court with six random other people?

Thank you bluegreygreen.

Thin ice comes readily to mind.

Apart from ANL costs are there further costs to be met / divvied up in respect of lawyer Bouffant and team?

Such a self-inflicted mess 🙄

Lol, exactly. Poor chap finding himself in court with those other, awful people.