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

Presumably they have to pay their own legal teams too

Will Hugh Grant be making a statement? Wasn’t he behind all this?

Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they throw millions around just like that. They wouldn't stay rich for long if they did. He may be 'friends' with Hurley but I don't think he is with any of the others. The claimants will have got regular updates about the chances of victory and the possible costs should they lose. But they chose to proceed with the case, and will now have to pay. Elton is responsible for his own involvement in this farce, not for the others.

Love that saying. And also,' all fur coat and no knickers'.

Thanks to the posters that put up the judiciary link.

Indemnity costs - not surprising but ouch!

Will the insurance pay out? I doubt it.

The icing on the cake for me will be another Hazzer ‘it’s not fair, poor me’ interview with the BBC. 😂

I so want to see Jonathan Pie doing his take on this

I think the bouffanted one will be having cut back on hair products for the foreseeable 😆

Do you mean the DL who had her son’s body moved without informing his father? Or the DL who accused the London Fire Brigade racists when they put their lives on the line at Grenfell?

I used to have great sympathy for this woman but lately it’s gone. She shouldn’t have looked for a big payout without any evidence. Gloating doesn’t come into it.

I could not agree more. I have been disgusted by her behaviour and have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

Neville Lawrence’s elegant interview

www.dailymail.com/news/article-15960327/Stephen-Lawrence-father-breaks-silence-moving.html

Do you also know who the judge believed?

Insurance companies are always looking for a reason to avoid paying so I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to pay all of the costs.

He’s gone all quiet - shock horror 🤔

A fiver says the sainted Doreen will beat him to it, JudgeJ

After all she's done and the choices she's made to stab others in the back I swear I'll vomit if I hear one more "poor Doreen" comment

And you are really rude. This has been a polite, respectful thread until you appeared.

Elton wants his money to go to AIDS/HIV charities.

Harry is being sued by an AIDS/HIV charity for defaming and damaging it.

Why would she come out worse than any of the others?

Based on no evidence whatsoever, I wouldn't be surprised if Elton John paid Hurley's costs as well as obviously his own and David Furnish's.

Whether or not he or his family pay, I think Harry and Doreen Lawrence will be covered.

I'm not so sure about Simon Hughes and Sadie Frost.

I also wonder where this leaves their lawyers. If their case was really as bad as the judgement suggests, don't they have a duty to inform their clients?

@HoldMyWineperhaps you should go back and read previous discussions on this long running thread.

Not a Daily Mail fan myself but in this case they have been completely exonerated.

I think because she reached out to ANL before the trial started and offered to retract, but only if she was paid around £650k. (after all ANL had done for her family as well)

At the end of the day, her claims were rejected.

I think DL is a lesson to all of us about the corrupting power of wealth and fame. She did this, it seems, because she was chummy with H&M and let them lead her by the nose into it. They had a lot to gain from her being there, she remains a powerful figure in the UK, DL had less to gain (money and she is not broke) and everything to lose - a reputation built on hard work and outstanding campaigning. I think it is a tale of our times and a very cautionary one.

Doreen was very greedy and it's backfired.

ANL gave her a chance to walk away - she said that she would give a new statement saying ANL had done nothing wrong but only if ANL paid her £650,000.

ANL refused to pay and a few weeks later she testified in court that ANL had bugged and hacked her (without providing evidence)

The fact that she is happy to change her evidence if the money is right leaves a very bad taste - especially from someone who votes on our laws in parliament.

I feel very bad for the journalist who led the crusade to bring Stephen Lawrence's killers to justice (a personal crusade for him as his wife and daughters are women of colour) - yet Doreen was happy to smear him in court as a racist hacker - yet would have said the opposite if ANL had paid her.

Yes, I believe that lawyers are legally obliged to provide clients with regular updates about the chances of success if they proceed with the case, as well as the likely costs should they lose.

We know Harry has a track record for not listening to professional advice, and it would seem that is true for his fellow claimants too.

I have been on these threads since they began thank you.