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

The judge dealt with this specific point in his costs judgment (which I have now read - it’s very well set out and - gallingly for the laimants - likely to be cited as an authority for when indemnity costs are warranted in the future). Anyway, he said:

“There was also, however, a fundamental difference between this litigation and some of the earlier litigation against other newspaper groups on which the Claimants sought to rely. In those cases, admissions or established findings of widespread or habitual wrongdoing provided a foundation from which inferences might more readily be drawn in relation to particular articles or incidents. Associated made no such admissions. That difference mattered. In the absence of admissions by Associated, the Claimants could not treat the fact that private information appeared in an Article, or that there was no readily obvious lawful source for that information, as sufficient to bridge the evidential gap between suspicion and proof. Nor could they proceed as though generic findings in other litigation supplied a road map for proving article-specific UIG against a different publisher. The dynamic of this litigation was therefore materially different. It required the Claimants to establish, by admissible and probative evidence in these proceedings, the particular allegations they advanced against Associated and its journalists” (para 113)

@AutumnCrowOfTheBailey can I applaud you on all your name changes on the various threads. They are superb.

Thank you @Serenster

@PropertyD I don’t think thats true. The issues the judge considered are listed in the judgement. They do involve Harry as a claimant with specific instances and reporting listed. The claimants are required to produce evidence that ANL acted illegally in obtaining the studies. Clearly these have nothing to do with other people and the barristers would not have put such issues forward.

Harry listened to himself! It’s fairly common for aggrieved people to want their day in court, albeit 55 days in this case overall. They believe their own narrative and for Harry, this is decades of hatred of the press. The judge has criticised the court time too.

Barristers might suggest stepping back and taking a pragmatic view, but the case ownership is that of the claimants. The responsibility to carry on or step back is the claimants’. It could be they ignored advice but we don’t know. Harry and the others just got deeply entrenched in their own narrative but without evidence of wrongdoing by ANL.

Claimants and ANL to agree costs.
If they can’t agree costs then it’s over to a Costs Team to work out the costs - that could make it even more expensive😱

In a word - yes. Nickel-and-diming £34m worth of individual invoice entries will burn through the cash. The judge outlined the process that will be involved (and remember that this will be a mini-trial with each side making submissions about why the particular item of costs are reasonable/unreasonable):

“The proper protection for the Claimants lies in the detailed assessment process.
That assessment will be rigorous and evidence based. Associated will have to justify the costs it claims. The Costs Judge will be able to scrutinise whether particular work was reasonably undertaken, whether the hours claimed were reasonable, whether the level of fee earner was appropriate, whether there was duplication, whether work flowed from developments in the litigation, whether costs were caused by matters for which the Claimants should fairly be responsible, and whether the sums claimed are reasonable in amount. On an indemnity assessment, doubts are resolved differently, but the receiving party is still not entitled to recover unreasonable costs“

So it is in everyone’s interests to settle on a costs figure.

@Serenster Yes, costs must be reasonable but thst is open to interpretation. The ceiling has been removed because the word “proportionate” has gone.

I haven’t followed this but just listening to a lawyer summarising the judge’s verdict.

Four years it went on, millions spent, no evidence. Sounds like the judge was brave enough to be scathing about the motivation.

Do we know whether EJ and PH have been bank rolling all the claimants' legal costs to date?

I'm assuming that if they had relied on a litigation funder (like the group that took the Post Office to court) a more pragmatic approach would have been forced on the non-millionaires?

How do you know that? Genuine question as genuine interest in the insurers

You seem quite sure. Do you know who they are?

Could a single claimant refuse to settle?

If the costs turn out to be more than anyone is prepared to accept, how does that affect the insurance? Do they still have to pay any extra?

(sorry if that is a stupid question)

If it could be established that one or more of the claimants lied/presented untrue statements then I’m pretty sure this would be covered off by the insurers exclusion clauses.

It was in the article written by I think the costs specialist in law society mag or similar it was posted on this thread. I remember Guildford as I grew up near there. You should be able to do advanced search for it x good luck in September, do you have a date yet.

I have not followed this case but was this sum a lot more or a lot less than expected?

Doesn't bare thinking about and no prizes for guessing who might do that!

Me too & also @MrsLeonFarrell my auntie used to use both 😂

Thanks @bluegreygreen for this thread 😎

WRT costs, my knowledge is limited but I believe it is legitimate to include “ thinking about it in the bath” time.

At work I was a problem solver and my unpaid time included:

• thinking about it on the Tube
• waking at 2am and making a note time ( the note taking meant I could fall back to sleep.

Big question.

Do they slap 20% VAT on top?

Elizabeth Hurley has posted a photo of her tits in St Tropez tonight on Instagram so she’s either brazening it out or she couldn’t give a fig.

Good for her, someone has to be the dignified one, the rest are deplorable. Do you get paid per click on Instagram? Could add up she has 7 days.

In fairness, she's not got much else to work with. Though she must be looking at diminishing returns at her current vintage.

I think the company mentioned in previous threads was Temple Legal Protection based in Guildford

Yes agree. I read somewhere that they were a small company - the article seemed surprised they had used them- I will try and find it.

Yes, it's a service

An extra £6mil?