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

DL also put her name to Harry's awful statement basically smearing Judge Nicklin as corrupt. None of the other claimants did.

Did she say she'd sign a statement saying ANL had not committed any wrongdoing, or that she'd drop the case?

I know who I believe

And who do you "believe", @sleepwouldbenice? Harry? Doreen? One or more of the other claimants?

Because I don't know if you've noticed but they've just had every one of their 74 claims rejected and their conduct judged as "unreasonable to a high degree" -and not by the blasted media but a judicial process able to sift these matters thoroughly and come to a rational conclusion

Why did the judge place strict limitations on using historical private investigator payment ledgers from the 2011 Leveson Inquiry?

I think burden of proof on a historical crime was always going to be tough.
1993-2011 that's 18 years of reporting.

Daily Mirror, Sun and NOTW were all deemed to have acted illegally at times but Daily Mail didn't?
👀

I read somewhere that Harry tried to get everyone to sign that statement as a part of his dragon 🐲 slayer rhetoric - but only DL did it and the other 5 kept their heads down.

Apologies @HoldMyWinethat was meant to be to sleepwouldbenice!
Am upside down in a hyperbaric oxygen tank and keeping up is hard.

Yes because the evidence showed the ones behind the claim wanted ‘anyone with a dead child’ as one of the claimants .

Thanks everyone for the updates and insights

I'm assuming that if they fight the costs and it goes to the cost judge then they run the risk of even more costs on both sides?

Elton is already likely paying 29% of costs as I presume he is paying David Furnish's costs as well as his own.

The costs order is between them all, I think? So not £9mill each? Or am I wrong? Initially I thought each but I don’t think so. Very muddled headed today so I could very well be wrong… still a lot of dosh either way.

That's a good point. Even the negotiations will rack up costs.

I have to say I was quite surprised to learn that insurance is a 'thing' for legal cases. I mean, it's not a hypothetical thing like breaking your leg on a skiing holiday. There are only two sides, and one of them has to lose.

Given that it was obvious from the start that this case was a crock, the premium must have been sky high. I also read that a rep from the insurance firm was at court every single day. And now that the judge has awarded indemnity costs, and been absolutely scathing in his assessment of the claimants' behaviour, you'd imagine the insurers would have ample grounds not to pay the full amount, or indeed anything. We all know insurers are very very good at this sort of thing, and I don't think they'd have to try too hard in this particular case.

Elton has stated he is only giving his children a "small" percentage of his wealth, so I cannot see him being generous and footing the bill so his fellow celebrities keep their wealth for their children. TBH promises made on costs when you are certain you are going to win is very different to actually putting your hand in your pockets when you've lost.

Apologies as I have not followed this case in detail, but in short what was so different about this case compared to others against newspapers where the judgement went the other way?

I too think Elton John will cover a large amount of this bill.
He’s very, very rich and makes millions more each year from song Royalties, currently estimated at £20 million per year. That and his net worth of nearly half a billion means this lawyers bill is peanuts to him.

Putting it simply, the claimants had no evidence for what they were alleging, and - as the judgment shows - behaved in a manner which was far from acceptable

In short: The claimants had no evidence of illegal news gathering, and ANL had a lot of evidence of them obtaining their stories from other, completely legal, sources.

The £9,5 million is the initial, interim payment that must be paid within 7 days between them all. The rest will be decided later. ANL has costs of £34 million which would be another £2.6 million each if full costs are awarded.
-not all of them have 2.6 million
-but - they have approx £16 million in insurance - if it pays out
-so they will need to carve it up

Plus - these costs are only ANL's costs - the claimants also have to pay their own costs that were around £18-20 million

I very much think so.

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

Didn't Elton say previously that he's not an ATM? And he won't have that amount sitting around in his current account. It'll be tied up in trusts for tax and inheritance purposes.

Apologies as I have not followed this case in detail, but in short what was so different about this case compared to others against newspapers where the judgement went the other way?

Lack of evidence.

Evidence!

Will we get to hear about it if the insurers refuse to pay out? Under normal circumstances I'd expect that sort of thing to be confidential, but given there are several claimants and at least one is a blabbermouth who thinks the world is against him perhaps we will hear all about it?

I don't speak legal, is someone getting their wrist slapped in that wording?

More than a wristslap, I would think.

They really do believe we’re as stupid as they think we are.