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

There were 4 different barristers involved, and two firms of solicitors, @Lunde.

From the front page of the judgement:

David Sherborne, Ben Hamer, Luke Browne and Hector Penny (instructed by Sheridans Solicitors LLP and Thomson Heath Jenkins & Associates) for the Claimants

It's probably in there somewhere who was represented by whom ...

I would expect the costs judgement to include:
(a) a decision on capped or indemnity costs awarded to ANL, with reasoning given in minute detail
(b) amounts determined for individual costs, with reasoning
(c) total amount determined for common costs, with reasoning
(d) amount to be paid within 14 days (proportion of individual and common costs)
(e) date by which entire amount is to be paid

I don't think there will be any ruling on which claimant is to pay which proportion of the common costs: the court has already ruled that they are jointly and severally liable.

As always, this is just my opinion - happy for legal people to say otherwise.

I'm linking the 2 pre-trial costs judgements here, as they were discussed on previous threads and it's possible we may want to refer back to them.

January 2025 Costs management hearing [15, 51]
This was where the capped budget was set for the rest of the case for both the claimants and the defendant.

December 2025 Costs liability hearing [8, 30]
This was where ANL applied for the claimants to be held jointly and severally liable for the common costs. This was approved.
This was the judgement where Judge Nicklin told the claimants to be very clear about the consequences of the way the litigation was being conducted, and to ensure they had sufficient insurance.

Thanks for the new thread, might just be the most interesting of them all.

DS has three barristers with him who are more junior than him and all called to the bar within the last 3 years. ANL had 3 KCs and juniors. I think DS represented all the claimants.

I found this on one of the solicitors' websites (bet they are regretting that)

Claimant Legal Teams

• Hamlins LLP: Represented Prince Harry (The Duke of Sussex) and Sadie Frost (instructed by lawyer Callum Galbraith).
• gunnercooke: Represented Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence (instructed by lawyer Anjlee Sangani).
• Thomson Heath & Associates: Represented Sir Simon Hughes (instructed by lawyer Mark Thomson).
• Lead Counsel: All claimants shared a joint counsel team led by prominent barrister David Sherborne alongside Julian Santos, Ben Hamer, and Luke Browne.

https://hamlins.com/announcements/various-claimants-v-associated-newspapers-limited-defences-and-end-to-reporting-restrictions/

@LundeHow it works is that solicitors instruct barristers to advocate for the claimants in court. The solicitors instructed 5BR chambers and obviously wanted David Sherborne as he’s a stellar barrister in this field of law. DS represented all of them in court.

Excellent detective work @Lunde! 👏

There was an interesting link further down that page, @Lunde, to a court case that has a bearing on our discussions on privacy and press freedom.

Court of Appeal signals new approach to ‘misleading’ news coverage

In summary, a man brought a case against ANL for defamation because his picture was used in an article where the headline referred to a 'sex harassment donor', who was not him.
ANL won the case, because it was obvious on reading the article that he was not the person described in the headline.
He then brought a data protection claim, alleging that ANL had processed his personal data unfairly by placing his photographs beneath the headline.
The Court dismissed the data protection claim and entered summary judgment in ANL's favour on the basis it had no real prospect of success for the same reason.
The Court of Appeal has just reversed that decision, and entered summary judgement in his favour, referring to the Editors' Code of Practice which requires publishers to "take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text".

The full judgement is here
DV unfair data processing judgement

I thought it was interesting (from the point of view of our discussions) as it potentially provides another route for celebrities to object to articles.

The other thing I found interesting was that he doesn't appear to have complained to IPSO, which would have been the usual place to take the complaint, and where he would probably have won from the beginning as they assess complaints against the Code of Practice.

I am busy on Thursday so if anyone has contacts could you suggest Tuesday please ?
Many thanks !

Thanks once again for the new thread, @bluegreygreen

Like others I'm learning SO much from these threads, and will doubtless learn more with an interesting weeek coming up ...

Thanks for this - it’s big news. Huge!

ETA: I’m thinking of those on the end of some nasty witch hunts by certain online publications, eg JK Rowling and Dr Kathleen Stock. But that’s a derail so will take it across the way later …

Actually I don’t think it is big news. It’s one case but how often does anyone suffer in this way? Usually a headline matches the picture accurately to the headline and most editors would do this automatically. I’m assuming this case is not going to the Supreme Court but how often would a story about a mass murderer attach a photo of a celeb or a random individual? It makes no sense to do so. One mistake is not signaling very much in my view but the claimant was right to go ahead with it for the compensation I assume he got. And of course the publicity and press kicking. Possibly a pro bono case too.

In general we have a tightly regulated press and it’s not the Wild West. Picture editors and sub editors make mistakes. Legal opinion might vary on the nuances of cases and not all appeal/supreme court judges think the law means the same in a given case - they often can have a dissenting view. Which is good.

@LundeEven when solicitors lose cases, they still say whom they have represented if it’s a big case. It shows they are big hitters. Barristers don’t sing about lost cases!

Yeah, good sleuthing, @Lunde.

I am here for whatever next week brings. I wanted to respond to this post (or extracts of) on the last thread:
“What was put forward was a series of newspaper articles which the claimants believed proved ANL got the info by illegal means. They didn’t and defended based on that. Therefore it was essentially assertions and feelings of hurt that were put forward and that ANL must have acted illegally because how else did they get the stories and facts? They said what they believed but did not manufacture (make up) evidence. The articles existed but the claimants could not prove illegal info gathering.”
**
“Barristers are certainly able to advise clients not to proceed because the case is hopeless. Eg lacks credible evidence. However the claimants certainly believed their feelings were correct and wanted their days in court. It’s also believed the judge has significant disquiet about this taking 11 weeks of court time which puts back other important cases. This might affect the costs judgement too.
Don’t forget other papers had lost in court and the claimants believed ANL were guilty too and two claimants then criticised the judge and the judgement. It’s a mess for the claimants in many ways and if there’s an inquiry into the court legal teams, the Bar Standards Board will be involved. Taking a case when instructed by solicitors and clients is not poor practice though. Not stopping the case is not the decision of the barristers either. They are advocates for the clients but determined clients don’t always listen to good advice and a case has to be made. The case is not dreamt up by barristers. It was more about Harry and the others wanting to thump ANL.”

If DS as barrister was working on a no win, no fee basis then, as he realised there was so little actual evidence, then wouldn’t he have advised them not to proceed? And said ‘if you do want to proceed then I can no longer work on a no win, no fee basis as I don’t think it’s winnable’? Or would he have been hamstrung by the initial no win, no fee contract they presumably all have which forced him to proceed on a no fee basis? I just don’t understand how such a weak and expensive case could have been worked on for free by the claimants’ barrister.

From the article:
The Court of Appeal's judgment is significant because it provides a potential route for Claimants to seek redress using data protection law when they would not succeed with a defamation claim.

I agree, @MeetMeOnTheCorner, that we have a well-regulated press and that anyone can make mistakes; also that sitting judges can have differing opinions.

I do think it's significant in providing a precedent that can be followed. I also find it interesting that the claimant didn't complain to IPSO first, where he would almost certainly have won; I wonder if that was the intent.

@bluegreygreen Yes. Data protection is an interesting route and there are laws about that too. Not sure if the flood gates are open though. Often one case is not an open door because other cases might have different nuances and details. However I would expect editors to take note!

Wasn’t David Sherborne one of those rounding up the ‘victims’ ? Certainly in Harry’s case,he was the one who convinced him to go ahead with court action. It’s not like they all believed they had a case, had already hired solicitors, and then went looking for a barrister. It was the other way around.

There is no way he was going to advise anyone not to proceed, he wanted this more than anyone it seems.

Good question @Choux.

I don't know. We have the interview article from 2023 which says he does these 'phone-hacking' cases no win no fee, but there's nothing to say he hasn't changed that for this case. Also, just because he does that doesn't mean the rest of the legal team do.

There are lots of loose ends about DS's involvement with this case that I'd like to know more about:

We know he was associated with Hugh Grant as far back as Leveson, when he was censured for the way he was questioning Paul Dacre on matters that he hadn't been told were included. Was he involved in the plan from the very start?

He was at EJ's house in France, where he was introduced to PH. Somehow he then became PH's legal representative in a solo case against NGN, despite the fact that at that point PH was jointly suing NGN with PW. (PW settled in 2020; PH finally settled with NGN in 2025). Just how did that happen?

As a barrister, he has a professional responsibility to his clients to warn them if their case is weak, and they risk losing. Did he do that?

How much did he know about what Graham Johnson was doing?

How much did he know about what Anjlee Sangani was (or wasn't) doing?

Lots of things I'd like to know more about ...

@Thedom Really? Harry has had many cases against the press and has had a well reported vendetta against the press for decades. Harry didn’t have to go to court any more than the others did. They clearly had issues with evidence but Harry and Doreen Lawrence now say the judge was biased. They wanted their days in court and truly believed they had been victims of the press. Barristers simply facilitate this and DS is the most well known in this field. He does not need to (or indeed should) tout for business but he can have exploratory meetings with potential clients and he might have already had them as clients, not sure.

PH has been his client since 2019, as above.

DL had a history of successful court action, and was also a national treasure with a 'dead child' (remember?).

Re 'Barristers simply facilitate this' @MeetMeOnTheCorner, while I agree with you on a lot, I think this is where we differ.
Barristers receive instruction, yes, but have professional responsibilities so are not passive in the interaction.

I think it depends on the contract they have drawn up, they can arrange it how they like in terms of payments.

As discussed before it seems clear DS was hoping for a series of big payouts against ANL like Mirror Group and the NOTW etc so might well have been pure no win no fee.

I dare say there will be some gossip around the bar about it as apparently DS is not well liked even in his own Chambers.

The connections seem to be:
Hacked off-Hugh Grant-Liz Hurley
Liz Hurley good friends with elton and ptnr
Hacked off -forgotten the lib/dem politician who works with them-friend and colleague of Simon Hughes.
Hacked off-byline times-sadie frost is odd one she doesn't seem linked personally to the others.
Elton-harry-doreen
They are the ones who fell for it/greedily thinking big pay day but not like Elton needs the money? Maybe the drama was the attraction.
We don't know how many more were canvassed, lineker, national treasures or anyone with dead children etc.
Sherborn certainly recruited dimwit harry after Elton's introduction. A real covern of witches drunk on their own importance.

Hacked off -forgotten the lib/dem politician who works with them-friend and colleague of Simon Hughes.

Evan Harris.

Thank you, I couldn't remember for the life of me. They all seem linked.

Evan Harris gave evidence for the claimants at the trial.