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 doubt there's enough for the police / CPS, and the ANL can't 'win' any more comprehensively than they have already. I don't think it's worth anyone's time and effort.

Not forgetting her refusing to accept continuing royal security via the Met Police.

Diana was a deeply disturbed woman who employed a personal psychic and had very poor judgement in many areas of life.

This was her personality long before her marriage so not attributed to Charles, Camilla, the RF or the press.

She had many very positive qualities but she was also impulsive, flakey, vengeful, dramatic and had a limited ability for critical thinking.
Emotions overrode everything, leading her to make numerous serious mistakes both for herself and her children.

She absolutely played a role in her own tragic death.

@Ratherhaveacupofteaandabiscuit I don't think she was any of those things before she met Charles and was seen as a good match for him by older relatives. Yes, her family was damaged but she was not scheming then.

I think Diana’s family may have covered up or minimised her behaviour. The reality is Charles and Diana had very little time to get to know each other before their engagement and wedding.

Can we stay on track please?

Whatever ANL are going to do, it won't be till after they've been through all the costs hearings and rulings, surely?

But I agree with the posters who have said that ANL will have a queue of stories lined up about H&M that'll last years, and be very lucrative for the paper if they're dished out to the usual formula.

I did predict that one of the Mail's 'sources' would turn out to be Meghan. As it happens, it was both of them. It'll be interesting to find out to what degree, and how many Mail journalists were involved, the next year or two.

Talk about H opening a can of worms.

If true, what a silly man. What a silly, silly, silly silly pair of them.

Harry seems to think he's untouchable, being the son of the King.

He may even be right. But he should perhaps take a sideways look at the son of the monarch who lives effectively confined to barracks, and make some calculations.

I do get the feeling that ANL could destroy H reputationally, but will choose not to if it serves them better, i.e. if it gives them some leverage with the MIGS at the Palace and the WRF under Charles. But as others have said, if William, as monarch, says to ANL 'do what you like; I don't care, in fact I'll be glad of the excuse to stick him in a Sandringham farmhouse under guard' then I'm here for it, glued.

I've been interested that ANL are clearly being very cautious until the Consequentials hearing is over.

I was expecting more stories on the case to run, especially a couple of follow-ups on the Mosley money story that you linked, @AnAutumnCrow, but they have obviously decided there is no rush.

(Edited as posted on wrong thread!)

"This was her personality long before her marriage"

She was 19 when she got engaged and 20 when she married. She didn't have much of an adult life for anyone to draw conclusions from.

@HoldMyWine gave a gentle reminder about staying on the topic upthread, and I was grateful the conversation moved on and hoped not to have to repeat it.

Please could we keep general RF discussions to other threads? Thanks.

@bluegreygreen That’s a little bit mean in terms of policing the thread

Harry’s view of the press, and his court cases, are undoubtedly fueled by his mother and the circumstances of her death. How this came to be has a bearing on the general discussion and the court case. It’s part of Harry’s dna to be affected by what happened to his mother, in his eyes. It’s possibly why he persists when he should not. It’s no more speculation than stuff about Gavin Burrows that had little bearing on the case because the judge discounted it.

Nope. Not mean. There are loads of paths that lead us here, but they are discussions for another thread.

I think we are seeing an active case of ANL 'keeping their tinder dry' it would be foolish to jeopardise the settlement.

Not mean at all. At regular points on the thread we have asked for the posts to remain focussed on the court case.

@MeetMeOnTheCorner We're now on the fifth thread discussing this case.

It became clear early on that when there were any detours into discussing RF members unrelated to the case, the thread could become more inviting for the kind of partisan arguments that were very prevalent on the boards some months ago, and derailed quite a few threads.

That's why the posters who've been on the threads from the start have been keen to keep to the main subject, with additional discussions around press freedom and related topics. It's also why it's been in the OP for the past few threads.

It's worked for us so far, but as we're coming towards the end of this thread I suppose it's as good a time as any to check if that's still how people are happy for the thread to run?
There is also an argument that it doesn't really need to be on the RF board at all. I only started it the first one here as the case had been mentioned on other threads, and I had a specific question.

Happy for people's comments.

@bluegreygreen I have, as you probably realise, discussed the case in the spirit of the thread, along with nearly everyone else. Not from the beginning admittedly but I do think why there is unrelenting pursuit of Anl and others by Harry is relevant to the case and why he doesn’t back down. Others have thought similar on the thread I think. I don’t like wild assertions about Diana but I do think her death is relevant in terms of motivation. I am happy to wait for the judgement though and not comment further on Harry’s mother.

I totally agree that the loss of his mother has had a huge role in how Harry deals with the press, and has contributed to his pursuit of these cases. I suspect it also made him vulnerable to those who had a particular interest in attacking ANL.
I think we discussed about similar psychological vulnerabilities before in the case of DL - possibly towards the end of thread 3.

👏

I’m finding this thread interesting as a lurker, haven’t posted much but am mindful of trying to keep on track when I do. It’s easy for a thread to wander but this is the sort of thread that shouldn’t, so I have no issue with reminders to stay on topic.

So according to this article we are expecting the judgement sometime next week. That should get everyone back on topic 😉
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-legal-fees-mail-high-court-b3024774.html

Something to look forward to

Thank you for the link. **

Mr Justice Nicklin said the claimants would need to pay the interim payment on August 28, adding: “They are going to be paying a sum of money that I will confirm in the judgment.”
During the hearing, lawyers for ANL said the group of household names should pay on an indemnity rather than a standard basis, which would be more favourable to ANL in terms of the amount they can recover.
Mr White said the legal claims were brought for a “collateral purpose” of trying to pressure the Government into introducing the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, describing it as “a campaign rather than ordinary and reasonable litigation”.
However, speaking on behalf of Sir Simon on Thursday, Mr Bacon said the former MP’s claim was “limited”, adding: “He wishes to make it clear through me that he was not a campaigner against Associated.
“He made no public statements adverse to Associated or its employees.”
Mr Bacon later said in written submissions that it could be “very significant” if the group of seven had to pay ANL’s costs on this stricter basis and could lead to them being without enough insurance cover.
He said that on the standard basis, a judge will need a good reason to award more costs than were set out in court-approved budgets, but this does not apply when costs are awarded on an indemnity basis.
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.
The barrister added that the group of household names has obtained insurance cover of a combined £16.2 million.
He continued: “If the claimants were required to pay Associated’s costs on the indemnity basis, however, the current level of cover would be insufficient to meet their total costs exposure, possibly to the tune of many millions of pounds.”
Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to give his written ruling in the week of August 17.

So, the ruling next week, cheque books open at dawn.

What a complete waste of time, energy and money. All to vindicate the Mail fgs. When Harry was wittering on about England’s football tactics to Corden and Ferdinand, I wish one of his idiot pals had been smart enough to point out the massive own goal.

We all make judgements when it comes to insurance, how much would it really cost to replace all your house contents, to replace the building, to cover the loss of your car, your medical extras, your pets ongoing costs.

We balance cover with premium, that is the way of it. Anyone with insurance makes these decisions.

So cry me a river if they chose to under insure themselves. But this should have no bearing on the final costs.

@AnAutumnCrow Do you mean Harry et al have wasted their money? Almost certainly as they had no evidence. Only guesswork and feelings. Why should an accused business not defend their innocence? It’s what law is all about. There’s jeopardy in being on the losing side but 11 weeks of a trial and all the prep work was always going to cost squillions. It was up to the litigants to work out the possible liabilities if they lost badly and that their insurance might not meet the full cost if the judge awards indemnity costs.