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

Given I think DS said even losing one or two claims would be "catastrophic" for ANL , I am inclined to think they just threw everything at the wall hoping that a few would stick.

Absolutely. It was a scatter gun approach! Leaving ANL having to investigate every single accusation to the same level of completeness to ensure nothing slipped by.

The high costs result directly from the actions of the claimants legal team.

So basically they threw a large amount of accusations at ANL in the hope that a)something would stick and b)ANL wouldn’t have the resources to investigate them all so would just settle. They seem like a bunch of greedy CF who were hoping for a nice little earner after payouts from other newspapers. I think that’s particularly true for someone like SF who isn’t very well off and who was claiming about things that happened years ago.

The number of claims would lead to a lot of hours spent on defence. But the cost of the hours is somewhat flexible. The court already remarked the hourly rate used was high - it was noted for some prep work as being £740 an hour. Maybe they got all their most senior lawyers on it but possibly ANL know they would be unlikely to get all their costs back so upgraded the cost of the work to ensure they got as much back as possible. The publicity around ANLs defence costs will probably also be a deterrent to future claimants with a less than cast iron case taking them to court which is a win for ANL (although possibly not their lawyers)

Morning!

Yes, I think you're right - the costs are as a direct result of the way the claimants went about their claims.

That was part of Judge Nicklin's (and Sr Master Cook's) warning when he warned them about the costs:
In our judgment it is imperative that the parties and in particular the individual Claimants have the clearest possible understanding as to the consequences of the way in which this litigation is being conducted.

We don't know if he will grant indemnity costs, but they can't say they weren't warned.

Will we see Harry and the rest in yet another court case to try and get the insurer to cough up - ‘Harry (Prince) and the Insurer of Stone’?

Scarily possible!

He’s going to be so out of pocket this year. I wonder how much he will chuck at Sentebale to silence SC? It’s a tricky one for SC because millions in settlement would benefit the charity……but I think it’s critical we see how PH has abused his privilege in the charity sector - maybe we should set up a go fund me for Sentebale not to settle - although they have a private funder for their legal fees (ANL?) so maybe the pressure isnt on.

Ouchhh. PH will be digging deep in his pockets this year. What an absolute bell end.

Obviously Hughes is trying to untether himself from the other claimants - but is this for himself, or for the benefit of the others? Given his particular ‘conduct’ liabilities regarding the ATE insurance and the indemnity costs application, is he in fact attempting to take one for the team? (And someone will quietly cover his share later, having gained from this strategy overall.)

Interesting thought, @AnAutumnCrow. None of this group strikes me as being particularly altruistic, though I suppose it's possible.

I don't see it working though. While the claims were legally 'individual', the claimants have acted as a group throughout - even to the extent of using the same wording in the first section of each person's claim paperwork.

It's precisely because Simon Hughes was singled out over this that I doubt he's now "taking one for the team", AnAutumnCrow - more likely, as jeff so accurately put it, crapping himself

I did have to smile over his claim that he wasn't targeting ANL though - presumably he means it was an "Oops I seem to have sued somebody" moment?

And like some others I'm also wondering if claimants will try to sue the insurers if they back out ...

Omg I forgot about that. Also, wasn’t he liable for the Home Office legal costs for the RAVEC case? Has he coughed up yet?

So what happens if one of them doesn’t pay the legal costs and is declared bankrupt instead?

I always thought they had to submit a large number of claims to try and substantiate their case that UIG was widespread at ANL. If you only caught the headlines, it looked bad for ANL. H's statement that this was 'common sense' was flawed because common sense would also have led most people to believe that if the illegal practice were widespread, there would be more proper evidence to show this.

This would be a really bad look for Harry.

It depends.

If it's their individual costs, no-one else is responsible.

If it's the common costs, they are all jointly and severally liable, so ANL will pursue someone with funds for the amount.

@SaltyTea I’m not sure H will care that
much. This group are not necessarily best buddies. A couple definitely riding on shirt tails and chancing it. Who actually remembers anything awful that was said about Simon Hughes if it had not been churned up again? Or Sadie Who (?) for that matter? It was really a case constructed to put ANL in its place but with no evidence to do so.

All the claimants are functioning adults and should have made their own judgements about evidence and considered losing costs. They would also have been advised what costs could be if the worst possible outcome came to pass. They all just seemed blinkered and thought their hurt and hyperbole at the stories was enough without evidence of wrongdoing. Fortunately we have a justice system that requires evidence and not H and others being upset and lashing out.

The hourly fees are about what I would expect for senior legal people.

Has anything ever been said about Elizabeth Hurley that was negative? You’d expect a press melee with THAT dress, Hugh’s arrest and then single motherdom. But Elizabeth herself puts out a lot of information on her socials so she can hardly be surprised if the media picks it up and runs with it.

60 Minutes Australia have just dropped a preview for their Sunday segment (available on YouTube) entitled Hold the Front Page, which features Gavin Burrows and others regarding the Court Case. Just wanted to let people know in case they are interested x

So sorry I meant to put a link m.youtube.com/shorts/9xe7SNuvdD8?ra=m

Thank you!😊

With LizH and the others it was information they said was private I think (although I earlier said awful!). The point was the info was not gained unlawfully. Generally people get upset when painted in a bad light but these 7 did not really need to rake over anything at all.

Imagine where LH would be if the DM never printed anything about her?

There was absolutely no evidence and I am not surprised by Nicklin’s tonality when he said how outrageously expensive this was. However, the claimants pursued a case against advice (I am not talking about Sherborne but the Judge himself). Multiple warnings were given, attempted settlements were attempted which ANL rightly refused (they had nothing to settle). A 650k demand from DL on Christmas Eve despite saying she knew ANL had not done the things she was accusing them of doing. Operation Bluebird and a whole lot more. The claimants failed to adhere to deadlines in supplying information and when it looked like they would not succeed, they changed the claims and narrative!!! I am glad journalists and Investigators have spoken out and have steadfast. This really is one of the biggest media showbiz trial scams in history. As per the Judge, had the claimants taken stock a while ago, they may not be in the position they are in now.

@HoldMyWine This is about control that “celebs” think they should have. They court publicity and, in DLs case, accept journalist help when it suits, but then want total control at other times. I think we need a campaigning press. It’s the sign of a healthy democracy. These people let info out to contacts and “friends” and it must be annoying when you cannot trust them but I’d rather we had a press willing to investigate than one that’s gagged.

I agree totally with this! 👍

👆🏻absolutely