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 guessing this is a way KC indirectly picks up the bill. H spends his inheritance and KC replaces it for the GC.

I assume EJ will be the target for most of the joint costs. Maybe Harry for some of it. But each will have to find their individual costs.

I understand your point but I can’t work out what the GC is. (Gemma Collins keeps popping into my head!)

Harry is in a sticky situation. Yes he can spend his inheritance on legal fees, running costs for his lavish house and security he thinks he needs. KC might fund him a bit to ease any guilt he feels and protect his grandkids from the hardships of being middle class. But I get the impression William is never going to let Harry back in in any form. Not on the balcony or financially. Unless he can get KC to set up a mega trust for Harry - unlikely - or they trim their spending significantly, H&M are surely going to run out of money in their 50s, 60s, 70s?

GC = grandchildren

Well if they lived here, life would be a lot cheaper for them because they could piggy-back off existing security perimeters. But I’m sure William would require guarantees about non-merchandising the family and no more kick-and-tell

I think I've read H got the final payout from Diana's trust fund at 30 and QEQM's at 40. I've assumed that was then his money to do as he sees fit with. Obviously I don't know for certain . Personally , I think it would be a deeply unpopular and unwise move for KC to allow any hint he has paid for H's costs. This ought to be Harry's "you really should have thought of this before" moment.

I don’t see how KC can pay PH’s court costs as head of the judiciary. It seems unethical to me, especially after PH’s and DL’s whitewash statement.

Exactly - I think it would foolish. & I don't think KC and the MIGS are foolish. Not saying they're perfect but this would be bad optics on a par with watching the eclipse in its entirety with the naked eye.

I realise I am shamefully mangling the word optics there 😊

Unless he goes full grift. Hopefully KW5 will get ahead of the situ, unlike with AMW, and do what he needs to to protect the RF asap.

I agree entirely.

He's already in for 2/5 of the damage. Why would he take the rest of the misguided dreamers' team's knocks on the chin?

I think Pa is already subbing Harold on the sly.

How would we know if said subbing slipped into ethically dubious grounds?

It's not like the RF don't excel at financial smoke and mirrors.

H&M are surely going to run out of money in their 50s, 60s, 70s?

We've never seen even heavily disgraced/disgraceful royals on their uppers yet.

Harold's set for life.

Will we actually know the truth about who paid what or will it all be smoke and mirrors? We seem to have been waiting patiently for ages and I'm hoping it won't just be a damp squib day!

I don’t think anyone has to declare who opened their cheque book. The amount to be paid will be known but how it’s paid won’t be declared. I don’t think we really know if the claimants fees are waived or not.

Because he may have to, if they're joint and severally liable?

GC = Grandchildren

@MeetMeOnTheCorner, I’m assuming all monies paid to ANL come through the claimants’ solicitors’ accounts? Or the account of a main, nominated solicitor?

ANL isn’t going to get a cheque signed ‘Elton John’, for example.

If they turn on each other, we’ll hear all about broken promises, empty bank accounts and what their solicitors told them

If the source of each payment can be identified, I suspect we may hear about it via Daily Mail reporting.

I can think of no particular reason why ANL would feel compelled to keep that information private.

ETA And, as you say @Justdancevance, the claimants may well let us know themselves.

So he covers all the costs whilst Ham still lives in a Cali Mansion?

They are all liable, so they will have to start liquidating assets, selling homes. That is the risk you take with legal action.

Unless there was a written agreement EJ would cover it (and I don't for one moment imagine there was) I can not see why it should be assumed that he would pay.

All claimants knew the risk.

Well, they all have to pay their individual costs, but the from what I understand ANL can go after any of them for the joint costs. That's what they all, including EJ, signed up for. And it would make sense for ANL to pursue the person most able to pay them.

If I understand it correctly, joint and severally liable means that they are all responsible for their share but if anyone can't pay, those who can could be pursued for what is owed.

Even selling their homes won't raise the required funds for people like DL so as I understand it, the richer people could be pursued for it. I see your point, but presumably EJ realised this also when "joint and severally liable" was explained to him and proceeded anyway. Maybe it'll depend on how much ANL wants the money.

I agree with all this. It is the EJ will pay for all of it I don't.

I just don't believe he would happily pay without the others paying everything possible.

He isn't a charity, and I think he would expect people to sell houses/liquidate assets to cover what they can.

H can definitely cover it, even if it is a charge against his future inheritance - why would EJ let him off the hook?

I'm sure he wouldn't do it happily at all, but if it's court ordered, he won't have a choice. Several of the claimants couldn't raise the money even if they sold everything they have, so if ANL want the money, it may have to come down to him.

Also, it occurs to me... EJ might be mindful of the optics in allowing people to lose their homes and go bankrupt just to make a point if he's still pursued for the huge majority of the costs they can't cover anyway, and the amount they were ruined to raise was small change to him. He proceeded with the same information that they did, accepting he could be pursued for anything they can't raise, so it's not wholly on them either in that regard.

On the one hand I agree he's not a charity for failed co-plaintiffs. On the other, despite it all, I feel a bit off about allowing people to go bust nd lose their homes purely to make a point if he'd be paying for almost all of it anyway, as he would have known he might.