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

It is a small firm of insurers in Guildford, I suspect 16 million will not be easy for them to find.

'and support from Hugh Grant to impose statutory regulation on the press as a whole.'

I wonder if Andy Burnham is taking hughs calls tonight!!!

Infamous in the UK perhaps, but I'm sceptical that people in the rest of the Anglosphere care that much.

However, that is all a bit off topic for the thread.

Is this the case ?

Initial payment 9.5m

Insurance amount 16.2m
I had thought the claimants wanted the initial payment to be 8m (I thought I had read they could have half the insurance amount to be used for that initial payment, but I'll be blowed if I can find where I read that. Perhaps I dreamt it during the heatwave 😊)

IF the insurance company pays out and pays out quickly , (and neither of these may be the case - I don't know ) actually the amount needing to be paid in short order time is approx 1.4m / 7 ie £200k each. Which is more doable (depending which claimant you are I suppose ) but more likely to be liquefiable .

I may have this completely wrong.

I don't know much about insurers (apart from them not wanting to pay out) but surely this huge estimate would have been spread across various underwriters?

To be fair, many people think that the pair of them are big liars.

She’d have more chance convincing people that The Bench is factual.

I don’t think they’d pay her off.

The insurers are specialist and they know what they are doing. It’s not like high st car insurance. They will have spread risks.

As he was friend and MP colleague of hacked offs top dog, he was probably the first to sign up. ANL costs listed pre trial show SH as costing more than the others for defence due to how long ago the story was. Also the judge had to stop him incriminating himself while he was being cross examined! He is no Mr innocent.

I could see her playing Roxie Hart in Chicago. They do stunt casting for that role.

Perhaps Meghan will turn up on stage at the New Wimbledon Theatre in Jan as part of Chicago’s next regional tour…

Do Harry and DL's comments concerning Nicklin meet the criteria for slander?

Which means one or more could refuse their share if they feel the claimants misrepresented the case. Underwriters evaluate risk with the information available.

Wouldn’t be surprised if some off the journalists named (defamed?) in the case sue for damages to livelihoods and mental health as a result of a vexatious case…

BBC is reporting on reports that M has been offered an acting role in the UK. 'Sources close to the Sussexes' have not denied it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79g28zxwzdo

I doubt Sir Simon ‘Limitation Camouflage Scheme’ Hughes has got a leg left to stand on.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/limitation-camouflage-plot-in-mail-hacking-trial/5127301.article

Panto.

I would certainly like to know more about the insurance. When you consider its a binary outcome in a short timeframe and even the most bullish lawyer might say you had a 60% chance of winning it's just an enormous risk.

Plus they would have been kept up to date by the claimants and could have pulled the plug at any time.

The premium must have been massive and what they were told by DS and others can't have reflected the true likelihood of winning given the very clear judgment and costs order.

Would love anyone's specialist knowledge if anyone has some??

Would people mind taking the general Sussex discussion to one of the many other active threads dealing with that? It's derailing the topic of this thread, which is the legal case.

I don’t get all this. We all knew about this change of Burrows’s evidence from reputable news reports in 2023. Ergo, the legal insurance company knew in 2023.

Bit they continued to insure the claimants?? Why?

Sorry, can't remember! Could have been here!

I’m sure I read that too! Was it here? 🤷‍♀️

I think it was on one of these threads, possibly citing PA reporting or a blogger?

The judge also told the claimants that their 16m policy would not be enough, that would suggest they were knowingly under insured which in other types of insurance like buildings/contents means no payment.
A quick Google:
After-the-Event (ATE) insurers can potentially refuse or dispute payouts if there are grounds for policy avoidance—such as non-disclosure, material misrepresentation, or if the insured conduct falls under specific exclusion clauses (like pursuing a case with unreasonable or unsupportable claims).
Pretty much describes the case. However a representative of insurance was at trial each day. We then find that person is connected to sherborns chambers, can't remember pp who posted the article, if I am even remembering that correctly.
I have Def got brain burn out with this case.

Of course "sources close to the Sussexes" are not denying the reports, the claims originated from "sources close to the Sussexes" 😁Come on BBC, try to remember you're journalists!

PR disasters thread 29
This thread is for ANL court case.

Yes, in short, there will be a tower of re-insurers sitting behind the named ATE insurance carrier. They will be liable for say the first £3m, then the next is liable for the next £3m and so on until you reach the limit of the cover. That is how the insurance market works!

I do wonder why PH took it so far. It’s almost like he didn’t think he would lose.

I have seen some of the judges comments and it’s clear some of the things PH accused the Mail of were from his household and friends.

Who was he listening to to get such a judgement