Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 6

[bluegreygreen]

This is the sixth 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 (AW).

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, following the Consequentials hearing 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
Thread 5

There was limited direct reporting from court after the celebrities gave evidence; what there we followed on this link, which also includes reaction to the judgement
Sky news link to court case

Summary judgement

Full judgement

This is likely to bankrupt Sadie frost and Liz Hurley I’d have thought. Elton and Harry can probably weather the storm better?

Is it 9.5m each to pay back or collectively between them all

I can just imagine the conversation with the king, “darling Pa, now we’re all friends again, I have this trifling bill to pay. Any chance of an advance on my birthday money?”

Don’t get quite as far as the angel today @AutumnCrowOfTheBailey but used to live up past there!

In dealing with the cap we get a confirmation that “Associated now says that it has incurred costs of £34,481,622.54 to 9 July 2026.”

Indemnity costs awarded!

A mixed week for Harry then 😂

Apparently Elton has a net worth of £480 million so maybe he’ll cough up the lot?

Between them, but it’s only an interim payment and the total cost could be much higher as per previous posts

Para 139

"Publicity of serious allegations is relevant to costs where the allegations fail and where
the publicity has been actively courted. The seriousness of the allegations publicly
advanced against Associated and its journalists increased the burden on Associated.
It also increased the reputational consequences for named individuals. Associated also
relied on a statement issued on behalf of Baroness Lawrence and Prince Harry after
judgment (see [51] above). I have not set out the statement in this judgment. Its material
effect, for present purposes, was to assert publicly that the allegations of serious
wrongdoing against Associated and its journalists remained true, notwithstanding their
rejection by the Court after trial. That was regrettable. However, I decline to rely on
that statement as a factor supporting an indemnity costs order against all Claimants.
It was made on behalf of only two of them, not all. It would not be fair to attribute its
contents to the Claimants collectively. I therefore put it to one side. The point which
remains relevant to the overall assessment is the public way in which the allegations
were initially advanced and maintained, the failure of those allegations at trial, and the
absence of any clear withdrawal or acknowledgement as allegations fell away"

I'm just putting that put there says the judge so you can't appeal on it, but I see you Haskell. Lol v dry

Why should he? The others are all adults who chose to get involved with this farce of a case.

The timing of their 'moving home' announcement all makes sense now. If they had announced they were moving home after this then they couldn't deny it was money related.

In true MM&H fashion they announced it first to make it look like it was all their idea and a massive coincidence

I was wondering this.
Would it be too much to hope the insurers deny the claim? I mean Judge Nicklin's conclusions are very direct.

This made me laugh out loud!

Liz Hurley has an estimated net worth of around $50mio so she’ll be fine. It will probably sting a bit but won’t bankrupt her.

You don't get to be that rich by giving it away to people who should know better.

I don't think he will pay a penny more than his share, why should he hand over almost 10% of his net worth hes spent his life building because the people he had the dinner with cant afford it

You're not the only one wondering about that, NormalAuntFanny ... and wouldn't it be a shame

Edited to add I've just thought - perhaps they could sue the insurers too?

Harry can start Crowdfunding, I can probably manage the 54p if I rummage down the cushions.

Guess they may have to sell their US home now to cover the costs, that will all be someone else's fault

It makes more sense of the return to the UK. They must have been looking at the accounts, realised they already have much more money going out than coming in, and that with a massive legal bill to pay they wouldn't be able to afford the costs of maintaining their Montecito mansion.

I'm sceptical about these 'net worths'. But let's say it's accurate. Losing about one fifth of your entire net worth on a single daft legal case would sting more than 'a bit'.

Fair pint @IcedPurple .

Simon Hughes as well.
I have no sympathy for DL, ANL gave her the opportunity to walk away but she refused, unless she was paid to. Greedy all of them.

I agree he doesn’t have to but he might want to. Isn’t he god father to Liz Hurley’s son?

I wonder who the driving force behind the group was? Ie is there someone that now the others are all pissed off with? Did someone start it up and sweep the others along? How did they find each other? Get involved with it all? I suspect Harry but have no evidence.

The judge sounds really scathing in para #7 of the executive summary - a failure by Sherborne and his team

"Rather, the Court concluded that the litigation had been pursued in a way that took it “well outside the norm” [150]. In particular, the Court identified a combination of factors including: the exceptional breadth of the pleaded case; the gravity of the allegations advanced against many named individuals; the continued pursuit of serious allegations that lacked an adequate evidential foundation; the failure to withdraw allegations that could no longer properly be maintained; reliance upon the Burrows material; the way in which the “Leveson Lies” allegations were advanced; and the putting of unpleaded allegations to witnesses in cross-examination during the trial [109]."

the exceptional breadth of the pleaded case; the claimants threw out multiple accusations to see if anything would stick.

the gravity of the allegations advanced against many named individuals; they dragged many journalists through the mud accusing them of criminal acts without evidence

the continued pursuit of serious allegations that lacked an adequate evidential foundation; the claimants continued to accuse ANL and its staff of criminal acts despite having no evidence

the failure to withdraw allegations that could no longer properly be maintained; the claimants failed to withdraw claims where there was no evidence

reliance upon the Burrows material; continued to use the disputed Gavin Burrows statement after it was withdrawn in 2023 without corroborating evidence

the way in which the “Leveson Lies” allegations were advanced - accused Paul Dacre and others of lying to the Leveson Inquiry without evidence

the putting of unpleaded allegations to witnesses in cross-examination during the trial - suddenly adding new allegations and accusations to witnesses that had not been mentioned or included in the claimants claim

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Various-Claimants-v-Associated-Newspapers-Limited-Press-Summary.pdf

Well
we knew there was a reason they were returning to the uk £££$$$

Doreen Lawrence has not come out of this covered in glory. Almost of all the claimants she’s the one with the biggest repetitional damage I think.