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

Journalists at the Mail were hacked by the News Media and received compensation. They had no idea they could be and were hacked which shows the difference in culture at the papers.

I think what is being said is that DL was in the group that wanted to settle and approached ANL. But they said no.

Separately to that, DM reached out to have a conversation and offered the option for them agreeing to her stepping back from the case before trial. Which she declined.

ETA yes - probably heat. My brain was mush by close of business yesterday!!

stayathomegardener · Yesterday 23:20
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

Thank you.

I think DL is coming across terribly.

its worse for me that she had assurances that no matter what her costs would be covered. It means she had no skin in the game whatsoever in terms of personal risk. I bet she saw this as a chance for a big pay day, and if it did go wrong, no problem for her.

I think her conduct has been appalling.

on a separate note I’m a little bit confused about the costs. From one of the articles shared it suggested the ruling on the 29th might require the claimants to pay up to £10m within 14 days, and then the rest of the costs would be dealt with by a specialist costs process which would take a lot longer.

but I don’t get where the £10m comes from, and what that means if Nicklin orders indemnity costs.

Could any of our legal eagles explain?

@elessar There is a costs hearing scheduled for 29/30 July. This is where the same judge looks at what costs the losers (Harry et al) will pay. He can limit costs (and has done before) or agree to the high amount that ANL will want. It’s widely reported they will want maximum costs. Agreeing to the higher sum presented by ANL means, essentially, he will find that the claimants were not justified in bringing the claim and that the case was weak. It’s widely believed he thinks this as he didn’t agree one single aspect of the claimant’s case.

I did post better details earlier where I quoted legal experts from the Times. The claimants are responsible for the costs of ANL but ANL can submit a case for the highest possible costs incurred and argue that position with the judge. What the judge decides at the end of the month is what level of costs is applicable given the circumstances of the case.

Then there’s the insurance issue and how much that will cover of the costs. It’s reported to be £10m but this could be way short of what’s needed. Others will have better explanations!

@MeetMeOnTheCorner thanks - my question was referring really to the bit in the Times article linked above that says the following:

”What happens next
Nicklin will hear evidence from both sides for two days from July 29, and is likely to make a decision at the end of the hearing, Campbell said.
“He will most likely ask for 60 per cent of the pre-budget costs, then about 90 per cent of the costs going forward because they have been scrutinised by the court,” Campbell added. “So from my rough calculations that means there will be a payment on account of about £10 million, that is due within 14 days of the decision.”
This amount will be transferred directly to Associated, either by the insurance firm or the claimants.
If the litigants are unable to pay, then insolvency proceedings could be initiated against them — all while the costs are accruing interest of 8 per cent.

The rest of the costs will be dealt with in a year or so by a specialist costs judge, Campbell said.”

I couldn’t quite follow the 60% vs 90%, how that gets to £10m, and what the specialist costs judge will be ruling on compared to Nicklin.

but it sounds to me like the majority of costs won’t be resolved that quickly?

@elessar This is how I understand it:

One of the pre-trial hearings set a budget that Judge Nicklin felt was reasonable - a certain amount (I think about £4.8m for ANL, maybe £4.1m for claimants, but can't remember exactly) on top of what they had already spent to that point (pre-budget costs).

So you have pre-budget costs (what was spent up until that hearing), reasonable budget (the amount Judge Nicklin judged would be reasonable), and then indemnity costs (the amount ANL could ask for, which would cover their full costs, and Judge Nicklin could award, given his criticism of the claimants).

So Campbell is suggesting that Nicklin might order them to pay 60% of the pre-budget costs and 90% of the reasonable budget costs within 14 days, and then there would be a specialist costs hearing to deal with the rest (as presumably the claimants would appeal if Judge Nicklin awards indemnity costs).

Sorry, we're saying the same thing.

My brain is clearly mush!

DL seems rather arrogant and greedy, even the DM offered her an out, which I thought was rather gracious of them as they still at the point still had some sympathy for her. I don’t feel sorry for her at all and question her integrity and judgement, and ability to remain in the HoL.

Yes, given her outburst after the judgement I can't say I'm impressed at the idea of her being involved in passing laws, @HoldMyWine.

So you have pre-budget costs (what was spent up until that hearing)

Wasn't that something huge like £38 million (including the costs of years of disclosure of archival materials from ANL's end)?

So £38m + £4.8m + £4.1m = circa £47m, minus any ATE insurance payout the claimants may eventually get toward ANL's costs, plus any indemnity costs the judge(s) may award against the claimants?

Hence the 'ballpark' figure being mentioned by ANL of 'at least £50 million'?

I have been giving the coercion line more thought.

Where did the initial idea to sue come from?
Was it mainly fuelled by Hacked off’s desire to muzzle undesirable journalism, DS’s high profile easy money scheme or was there another driving force?

It was an ongoing campaign from Hacked Off/Hugh Grant etc. They were recruiting people to sue the DM, as per the emails linked on the previous thread.
The campaign had been going on at least since Leveson - so since 2012.

I'm unclear at what point Elton John became involved.

He then introduced Harry to Sherborne, when they were both staying at his (EJ's) home in France.
Harry recruited DL.

(Harry, incidentally, was at the time jointly suing News Group Newspapers with William. He pulled out of that case to take the case separately by himself with DS.
William reached an out-of court settlement with NGN in 2020 - which we only know of because Harry released the information in his own court papers in his case against NGN in 2023; he finally settled with them in 2025.)

Evan Harris/Hugh Grant emails re recruitment

https://archive.ph/VDjFe

Thanks @bluegreygreenI hadn’t realised how long this has taken to come to fruition. Must be extra galling.

William reached an out-of court settlement with NGN in 2020 - which we only know of because Harry released the information in his own court papers in his case against NGN in 2023; he finally settled with them in 2025.

Just looking at this part of my own post -

Both W and H will have been suing NGN on the same basis, given that they were living in the same place and subject to the same intrusions at the time.

Why did it take Harry 5 years longer to settle?

I know he changed his legal team - maybe add on 6 months (?) for the new team to get up to speed? I assume it wouldn't start the whole process again from the beginning.
No wonder his costs tend to mount up.

Don't forget Max Mosley, a particularly nasty piece of work with a liking for dressing up in Nazi uniforms and shouting orders in German. He won a libel case back in the day against the News of the World for calling him a Nazi sympathiser, claiming it was sexual role play. The judge accepted the sex kink argument.

The Daily Mail more lately appears to have evidence it is yet to publish in full about Max Mosley's direct connection via his father Oswald Mosley to money that was paid to high-ranking Nazis by european Jews during the Holocaust trying to escape the gas chambers. This money allegedly became part of the late Max Mosley's estate.

'What is less known, but was discoverable by any diligent researcher at Oxford's Bodleian library, is that this fortune was based on money given to Mosley by Mussolini and Hitler (something Oswald and his wife Diana lied about for decades), ransoms paid by Jews to avoid the death camps, and, after the war, extensive and lucrative dealings with the Fuhrer's henchmen and other anti-Semites – dealings in which Max was involved.'

Money from Max Mosley's family trust are alleged to have funded or part-funded Hacked Off actions, including this court case to bring down ANL and especially the Mail.

Makes me wonder about a number of Nazi / anti-semitic elements that have cropped up around a couple of the claimants and their associates.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15935115/Secret-meeting-Max-Mosley-Oswald-Nazis-Himmler-daughter.html

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/prince-harry-trial-max-mosley-funded-phone-hackers-campaign-9lbd9qr3d

It honestly fascinates me that the rest of the MSM media studiously avoid these connections swirling around Hacked Off, elements of the Lib Dems, various controversial charities, and a certain prince.

The more I read about Diana Mitford, the less I like her. But the info about the money Mosley received is shocking.

Yes, @AnAutumnCrow, I hope they publish the next in the series soon.

It honestly fascinates me that the rest of the MSM media studiously avoid these connections swirling around Hacked Off, elements of the Lib Dems, various controversial charities, and a certain prince.

I suspect they're scared to look at it. The idea that their campaign against the 'bad right-wing Daily Mail' is actually propped up by Nazi sympathisers would be a struggle.

A lot of the current media and political establishment pride themselves on being left-leaning liberals (or increasingly illiberal, as far as I can see).
There is a distinct lack of critical thinking, and an inordinate amount of requirement to approve the current buzzwords.

I don't know if you have come across Gerald Posner on Substack? I came across him first when he reported on the recent change in American medical organisations' stance on paediatric gender surgery.

I haven't read all his articles, but found this one very thought provoking.
Not Progressive Enough
I don't think we've quite reached that point in the UK, but do think it's where we're headed.

ETA It's one reason I respected Ann Widdecombe: I may not have agreed with her on many things, but she was always entirely consistent in her beliefs.

I'll have a look at Gerald Posner shortly, @bluegreygreen, thank you.

So is the NWNF just the 4.1 million and not the pre budget costs- because that would sound more likely.

Granted the lack of evidence, which was highlighted by the judge, is there a case for the awarding of higher costs? The action was clearly misjudged, the claimants hung on to the bitter end. Long after the outcome was clear to everyone
Wasting court time and seemingly reducing the proceedings to a whinge fest covering quite a lot of irrelevant issues. K

It wasn't very widely reported (only in the Independent and GB News, as far as I can tell), but PH and DL's attack on Judge Nicklin was criticised in the House of Lords by a former Chief Justice on Thursday.

During a debate, Lord Burnett talked about personal vilification of judges being a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary, and made reference to the 'whitewash' comment.
He also pointed out the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor to defend the independence of the judiciary.

I wonder if there will be any comments addressed to Baroness Lawrence by the Lord Chancellor?

Independent https://archive.is/fcYGQ

Hansard

Not only the lack of evidence, but the clear dishonesty in the attempt to cover up the dates, and the fact that PH at least was lying (if not directly accused of doing so - but what he said was not the same as his documentary evidence) ...

I think there is a good case for indemnity costs (not a lawyer).

I think Harry wanted the dramatic campaign - he wants to limit what the press is allowed to write about them and I think Elton +Sherborne played to his anti press grudges and his "dragon slayer" rhetoric.

William on the other hand, wanted to put down a marker for the press but didn't intend to become embroiled in a Sherborne court circus. So he took the £1 million damages (donated to charity) and got his costs paid - later derided by Harry as a secret settlement!!! 🙄

I also read that Harry was seriously miffed that his settlement offer was a lot lower than Williams. But his cases were lower....
The number of times hacked was
William 35
Kate 155
Harry 9
🙄

I think Harry started to think he was invincible!