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

Yes, @bluegreygreen thank you so much for breaking it all down! 👏

@bluegreygreen

Really appreciate you breaking it down for us.

This claimants’ actions were dangerously to perverting the course of justice. The indemnity costs order is the bare minimum for such a shocking misuse of the legal system.

I cannot find any statements from Hacked Off or Hugh Grant. Very unusual.

Fascinating read. So would in be fair to summarise as follows:

You knew you didn't have the evidence, chose to pursue the case anyway, made allegations against people that you have no evidence to support and refused to withdraw, treated it as a public inquiry and then when you lost you insisted that you were still right. As a result, you will be paying more costs.

PS your legal team sucked

I posted these estimated costs back at the end of July but it is worth looking at them again in light of the cost ruling. At the time these estimates were produced the ANL costs were expected to be c£20m not the £34.5m they finally reached.

Harry is Claimant 6. ANL estimated defending his individual claims to be £1.6m - the highest of all claimants including EJ and DF combined plus he has a share of the defences’s common costs. He also had the second highest estimate of the claimant’s individual costs. The DM is reporting that only ‘some’ of the claimant’s £20m costs are on a no win, no fee basis so it appears there will be a cost there too.

Obviously if insurance pays up this will reduce H’s overall bill but he seems likely to have one of the largest totals to pay even before you add in his promise to cover DLs costs.

Thanks @bluegreygreen - so how much responsibility does Hacked Off have in all this disaster? Did the organisation whip up the desire to pursue this court case amongst the claimants and then when more astute members,ie Hugh Grant, withdrew, did HO disappear completely leaving the claimants to fend for themselves?

And the claimants’ legal team: do any of them have careers left after this ruling?

It will be like the end of a long expensive dinner:

Harry says ‘well Doreen can’t afford it so let’s just divide the total bill by 6’

Sadie says ‘well no, you said YOU would pay Doreen's costs and I can’t afford mine so we need to divide by 7 and you pay yours and Doreen’s share’

Elton and David say ‘we are treated as a single claimant on the court docs so effectively there are only 6 claimants. Harry should pay 2/6 of the total bill if we are doing it that way’

Elizabeth says ‘hang on, Harry has a much larger individual bill. We need to go through it line by line. I didn’t eat calamari, I’m not paying for calamari!’

I heard from a Daily Mail journalist and was told there are no celebrations or victories - just relief. This case has inflicted real, lasting harm on DM people caught in the middle of it - and their families.

Sending love to anyone reading who has been impacted ❤️

In my own personal experience, the DM is very careful to verify its stories and ensure they aren’t the result of unlawful information gathering.

Other news organisations have to be very careful - obviously if the claimants had possessed any actual evidence, the outcome would have been very different - and rightly so.

And there you have it @GwendolineFairfax8 the real damage done to real people by people such as Harry who have an agenda and who don’t care about the little people. I have no sympathy for him today. None whatsoever.

Thank you @bluegreygreen for breaking the rulings down into chunks, so helpful. Mr Nicklin is very scathing of the claimants.

Another thanks to @bluegreygreen for breaking it down and making g it understandable.

Simon and Sadie say - well we didnt have any alcohol and have forgotten our card so will have to do the washing up. All turns sour.

Yes

On the payment I wonder how much Harry convinced the others to join

It seems like there was a cascade of persuasion. Hugh Grant persuaded Liz Hurley and Elton. Elton got Sherborne down when Harry was staying to persuade Harry then Harry persuaded Doreen Lawrence. Whilst the case fits in with Harry's campaign against the press, I don't think he was the instigator. They all convinced each other that this was the path to Leveson 2 and were in such an echo chamber that all the Judge's warnings about lack of evidence and not turning it into a public enquiry were ignored.

@GwendolineFairfax8 Insurers usually want evidence that supports a 60% chance of them not paying out. This is quite difficult to assess. They might also take a view on the conduct of the Trial as outlined by the judge. I honestly don’t know but I do wonder if their insurance claim is in doubt. The insurance company do have rules they expect claimants to abide by!

I’m another one wondering what would actually happen if any of the group refused, or were unable to pay?
This applies to both the interim payment due next week and the full balance (whatever that turns out to be - I suspect years of argument and wrangling ahead).
Do other claimants cover their share to be going on with? And try to recoup their loss at a later date (good luck with that). Or pay their own share and let non-payers take the consequences? Or does “jointly and severably liable” (if that’s the term) mean they would all be liable for the consequences of even one not paying.

I've had a quick look at the other threads that have appeared today on this- the amount of posters who are chastising others for celebrating the ANL win is frankly frightening.

They just believe that the DM is wrong because it is the DM, and anyone supporting them are on 'the wrong side.'

I think this simplicity of thinking is exactly why the claimants continued despite it being clear to anyone who looked that there was no case.

I remember the general surprise on here, we all felt that the reporters must be holding things back because we, lay people, could see that there was no case.

This is part of a wider issue, where ideologies are allowed to override common sense and laws and where tribalism is celebrated.

The importance of this win to wider society is incalculable.

Thank you to everyone on this thread, especially @bluegreygreen for the break down of the judgement, and to all those from ANL.

Another vote of thanks @bluegreygreen for breaking it down into chunks!
I must admit I'm surprised at how clearly Judge Nicklin's rulings are written. I was expecting lots of 'legalese' but he explains everything in precise, clear language.

I love the way he succinctly addresses the outrageous statement from PH and DL but makes it clear awarding indemnity costs wasn't a reaction to this, it was for all the reasons detailed

Completely agree. I was confused throughout the case by the "evidence" presented on the stand. I couldn't believe that it came down to celebrities believing their friends didn't leak. It was astounding that Liz Hurley claimed to be bugged with no evidence presented of the existence of said bug.

If you didn't follow the case and, rightly imo, dislike the general divisive tenor of The Mail, I can see why you might believe that celebrating this win is wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that people were accused of doing things they didn't do and found innocent. That should be celebrated in any democracy.

Yes really agree on this. This was pretty much unknown to me until yesterday but listening to a lawyer sum up in a segment on the radio showed the issues and judge’s view.

@MrsLeonFarrellinteresting on the payment

My mum (no surprise IYKYK) is one who believes that DM is crooked to its core and of course they were hacking and of course the judge stitched up Harry et al. I’ve given up arguing with her. So there really people still out there.

Forgetting my manners @bluegreygreen to say thank you for all your hard work in putting all this together.

It was Hacked Off and in particular, Hugh Grant and Evan Harris driving their agenda from the shadows - and linked lawyer (since at least 2012) David Sherborne believing the Daily Mail (ANL) would settle out of court - and Sherborne could make more filthy wonga from subsequent ‘victims’ who said (without a scrap of evidence) that the DM was guilty of UIG.

@bluegreygreen thank you for posting the breakdown/ relevant bits, saves my old eyes x
What an absolute shit show. It isn't the end of it either, I think the snakes will turn on each other, then on their legal team and the insurer if the don't pay out. I noticed, I think in the telegraph, quoted insurers to pay 9m interim payment as part of insurance payment! So their assumption is that insurers will pay. As judge has quite strongly suggested that the case was badly handled and complete lack of evidence it falls within the scope of insurance not paying.
This will rumble on forever. The costs will continue to mount with any additional time spent on it. Mr White qc will still be billing ANL from today onwards, adding to the claimants bill. Excellent point by pp that the cost is + vat and then interest will be added, absolutely eye watering.
They are bound to start spouting off to anyone who will listen, SF said judge should have recused himself, h&DL statement. They could end up being sued for defamation themselves if that continues. These are not noble in defeat claimants.

I am looking forward to the sentabale debacle.

For information, I was doing a lot of Hugh Grant’s personal work for two years and so have direct knowledge of how he and Evan Harris operate. Annoyingly, I can’t answer questions on that at the moment but it will eventually be in the public domain.

I will update when I am legally able to - or at least point you to the DM story.

Yes, I agree with you that insurers want evidence and as there was none, it raises a lot of questions in the eyes of the FCA.