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

And a yes from me please 😁

Yes - a separate Sentebale thread would be good, especially as there are different issues arising from it (probity in relation to charities, for example).

Sorry ! , I’ve not given any input, I have nothing of interest to add , but I am reading with interest.

Jumping in to say I'd be interested in a thread explaining the Sentebale case. I'll say now that I think a whole load of bigger charities are a total con. I suspect Sophie Chandauka was wise to Harry. Will be interesting to say the very least.

Have partly answered my own question about disclosure - ANL disclosure took almost 2 years in total because the volume of documents was so great.

Despite this, one of the interim hearings involved the claimants accusing ANL of not carrying out disclosure thoroughly. In his July Judgement, Judge Nicklin ruled that he was 'satisfied that such an assumption was “wholly unwarranted”'.

16. 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 the statements of case, including (in particular) the pleaded targeting periods, the pleaded Schedule B and C articles, pleaded associates, pleaded journalists and pleaded TPIs.

17. 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.

18. 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).

The solicitors didn’t follow the correct procedure with Gavin Burrows statement and signature.

Again this would raise huge red flags for the insurance company.

And you begin to see why the costs will be so high

There is so much smoke and mirrors around this case that I would not entirely believe the "no win - no fee"

It is possible that what they mean is that DS et al would settle for the insurance money - but now they lost that is going to ANL (if insurance pays out). Perhaps DS is waiving his court appearance fee?

But I don't see how the claimants' legal teams could afford to write off ca £25 million debt for

• DS
• junior barrister/s
• other junior barristers and pupils at chambers doing research on each case, witness and law
• each claimant has to have a solicitor and they would have teams as well
• admin costs for the legal teams
• court costs for a 45 day trial

DS would have absorbed those costs if he got an opening for a new gravy train enquiry,

Hopefully this result will make Andy Burnham think twice

I agree with all this, binkie, except that the dominoes have been toppling for a while and IMO it's just a matter of time until the endgame - whatever that looks like

As you say, the issues around finances will be deeply interesting, and I feel the same about Invictus except that, for whatever reason, the trustees of that appear to be unbothered

I think on older threads others have put it better but in short the whole of their case was "other newspapers did it so the Mail must have too".

And given how times News International and the Mirror paid off even quite sketchy claims rather than go to court they must have thought they would not only win but open a whole new lucrative seam of claims.

The lack of good evidence only mattered when ANL refused to fold and by them it was too late to stop.

As for Sherbourne we have had discussion in the past as to whether he was touting for business by putting together a roster of 'victims' which I think is forbidden for barristers but I guess we will never know unless the Bar council investigates him.

Interesting article in the Times about the court costs and the folly of Harold and Doreen’s joint statement.
Daily Mail publisher to ‘go for the jugular’ over Prince Harry legal bill

https://www.thetimes.com/article/114e44d8-d2a4-49db-9af3-ce7818fdc8b6?shareToken=910f3fbf46c8578627fae47dde9b3894

Interesting. So a source says that Harry and Elton will cover it.

The seven claimants are understood to have taken out After The Event (ATE) insurance via a Guildford-based firm named Temple Legal.

In a hearing last December, the claimants assessed their potential costs liability at roughly £14.1 million, and it is likely that the insurance policy will cover roughly this amount.

Interesting. I think this is the information that GwendolineFairfax was after?

The article seemed to suggest that ANL can enforce the entire amount from just Elton and h if the others don't have the money, I am pretty sure ham will not have realised that, it's one thing covering DL but Simon Hughes and Sadie frost as well (Liz Hurley apparently worth 50m as successful business woman)
DM have also reached out to DL to get together after everything settled....I bet she will drop them all in it for money and excellent story for DM if coercion was used.

Elton better gird his loins or splitting it might be an expectation that he foots 99.9999999% and H chucks a tenner into the hat and puts out a PR statement that he contributed to DL’s costs….

Thanks @HoldMyWine.

It's looking more and more likely that ANL could ask for (and be granted) indemnity costs.

This part was interesting:
Another source said that given the Daily Mail’s long campaign for justice on behalf of the Lawrence family, its publisher had reached out to Lawrence to have “an open discussion and avoid all this madness in court”.
In 1997, the newspaper named five men as being behind the racist murder of her son Stephen, which ultimately led to two being convicted and handed life sentences.
“The claimants sent third parties through a backchannel to try and get Associated to settle, but the company told them to forget it,” the source said. “They extended an olive branch to Doreen though, asking to have a proper conversation with her given the history the paper had with her and her family.
“She said she would settle but would not drop out of the case, though. They gave her an off-ramp but she said no.”

So, even when ANL refused to settle the case, they offered to talk to Doreen Lawrence separately, because of their history with her, and she refused to drop out of the case.

@Lunde The insurance is for ANLs costs. You don’t insure your own! DS and his chambers are said to have been no win no fee. No one really knows if this is true besides them. It possibly is. DS has made a lot of money out of these cases and so have his chambers. They can afford it!

DM have also reached out to DL to get together after everything settled....I bet she will drop them all in it for money and excellent story for DM if coercion was used.

Now this is interesting - after all the DM is a business, there could be quite a story there.

I read the article differently (as above).

It doesn't make me any more sympathetic to DL.

Yes, I understood it to mean they reached out to her individually pre trial and she rejected their offer.
Really the Mail couldn’t have been fairer here, DL is coming across as entitled as the rest of them.

Yes, that's how I understood it, @stayathomegardener

I bet she will drop them all in it for money and excellent story for DM if coercion was used.

Who coerced who?

I guess Hugh Grant/Hacked off coerced Elizabeth Hurley.
DS seems to have recruited Harry with his links to his mother and Harry apparently coerced Doreen.

She [Doreen Lawrence] said she would settle but would not drop out of the case, though. They gave her an off-ramp but she said no.

How could she both settle and not drop out of the case?? What am I missing here - is it the heat?!