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, there are administrative fees (court charges for filing claims etc) but otherwise court services are paid by the taxpayer.

This ensures that justice is free to all who need it, but is infuriating in a scenario like this.

Sorry, 'paid out' not 'forced out'.

Of course taxpayers should pay for the system for legal redress.

And I understand why this legal case had to be allowed even though it was so weak. The accusations were so serious they needed to be heard.

But if costs are awarded on an indemnity basis because it was conducted on such a false base, perhaps there should be a way of recovering some of the court costs as well

It would be good to have a mechanism for that, @Baital.

Or perhaps criminal charges against those who pursued the case?

It is rubbish, isn't it?

In principle, I don't think people should be penalised for bringing cases that they then lose.
There are indemnity costs for out of the ordinary behaviour.

Criminal behaviour? I still wonder about the 'limitation' argument, which was found to have occurred in the background from SH's case, though he was not said to have been deceitful in it, while Evan Harris was. Whether there could be charges brought around that, I don't know. The burden of proof is higher.

I don't have a share token , but there is an article in the Times online ( Saturday 5.45pm) The headline is " Spectacular defeat leaves Prince Harry’s golden lawyer tarnished
Celebrity barrister David Sherborne’s pursuit of case that ‘should never have been brought’ has led to what’s being described as his ‘utter, utter humiliation’ "

Inter alia it says there are those in the legal fraternity who wonder if DS will "bounce back from this." Much of what it says has been covered in these threads about the paucity of the case , but just in case of interest and in case anyone had a share token.

A "leading media lawyer" Louis Charalambous is also quoted as asking whether Temple were given an overly optimistic view of the likelihood of the case's chance of success and said they will be looking very carefully before paying up ( paraphrased)

Here you go

Spectacular defeat leaves Prince Harry’s golden lawyer tarnished

https://www.thetimes.com/article/0d3d1775-e9b7-47d9-8e53-292d19c2d3e7?shareToken=7af315fce4bf05115fc0cb7e02fa79af

Yes, I am very interested in the re-insurers and believe one is connected to Hacked Off. The FCA obviously thinks I have a point as it keeps asking me further questions.

Thank you!

I was looking for the article and found the comments on Times FB- people are not sympathetic at all.

Were [Temple] given an unrealistically high prospects of success, which normally has to be 55 per cent or more to get cover?

How can anyone look at the judgement and think there was a 55% chance that they would win?

Were Temple misled about Burrow’s statement? Or lack thereof

I had time so I have just reported David Sherborne to the BSB. It may take a while for a response but I will keep you informed when I hear back.

@RecoIIectionsMayVary Their web site says 60%. Not sure where the lower bar has come from in the article.

Many barristers take hopeless cases to court because the clients insist. Clients don’t always listen to sensible advice.

Not the situation in this case.

Can a Barrister drop a client/refuse to take the case because they believe it is hopeless?

GwendolineFairfax8
Brava ! 👏👏👏

“The judge reasonably concluded that the claims should never have been brought and hence made the punitive indemnity costs order. This gap will be closely examined in the next few days before Temple has to write a £9 million pound cheque to the Mail as the first instalment.”

So it’s crunch time this week as to whether Temple and the ATE re-insurers will pay up the £9m or refuse and force the claimants to pay the £9m themselves. I expect their initial decision was made a while ago - possibly even before the case concluded - but the cost ruling this week provides ample further justification to deny the insurance claim.

Thanks @BasiliskStare and @HoldMyWine for the article.

Isn’t it a bit similar to insurers refusing to pay out to holiday makers who get roaring drunk and climb over balconies in hotel blocks and fall off?

Presumably they don't have to conduct the case, including cross examination, in the way their client orders?

I realise they have to present the case the client wants presented, so the allegations and whether they are/are not dropped, yes. But surely there is a point when they can say 'that's against my professional standards'? E.g. the ambushing of witnesses with additional claims of criminal behaviour?

The insurance aspect is interesting.
It does certainly look like the insurance provider(s) have a good case for ‘avoidance’, however, it gets a bit more tricky if there is one of these in place, an Anti Avoidance Endorsement (AAE). This ‘add on’ doesn’t come cheap though.

The AAE safeguards the insured from the insurer's ability to void the policy due to misrepresentation or non-disclosure. This means that if a claim arises, the insured is less likely to face issues related to the validity of their coverage.

Also added a link here:

litica.co.uk/legal-expenses-insurance-industry-news-articles-education-insights/litica-leading-the-way-on-developments-with-anti-avoidance-endorsements

@PlacidPenelope I’m not an expert, but normally no, they don’t get to pick and choose. Clients frequently want a barrister of their choice and look at who has used DS! It’s a stellar list and whether anyone likes it or not, he’s had good results in an area where defendants have acted illegally. The normal route is that solicitors instruct barristers and can choose who they want or be advised by the Barristers Chamber’s Clerk as to who is suitable and available and at what daily rate!

Barristers can advise to pull out, but costs have been racked up by then. As I understand it though, there is most responsibility on the clients. They are supposed to listen to expert expensive advice! The issue here is what the advice was and we probably know Harry would not listen. The difficulty was, with poor evidence and dodgy witnesses, the management of the case becomes problematic and this is clearly what happened here. Harry etc might have been clearly advised of this. Looking at statements afterwards, would they have listened?

Many barristers have to make the best of a bad job but Sherborne went above and beyond on that! Hence the criticism of him.

I was thinking a lot about Sherborne last night.

I have wondered about repeatedly throughout this case about the responsibility of the lawyers themselves for their actions.

A comment that has been repeated several times on the threads when I've mentioned it has been 'barristers take instruction from clients'. However, barristers have their own professional responsibilities. They are regulated professionals with a formal code of conduct.

As a member of a similarly regulated profession, I cannot simply do what my patient (or my patient's relative) wants me to do. I am required to act in the best interest of my patient at all times (and yes, it has resulted in me and my team being taken to court, so I don't say it lightly).

I found it hard, therefore, to believe that barristers simply 'take instruction from clients', are entirely passive in the relationship and have no other responsibility.

I spent quite a while last night reading through the Code of Conduct section of the BSB Handbook.
From that, I gather that the ultimate responsibility a barrister has is to the court in the administration of justice.
His duty to his client comes second only to that.
He must act in his client's best interests at all times but must not mislead the court, and there is careful guidance for specific situations (e.g. in a criminal case, if his client has told his barrister that he is guilty, the barrister must not say anything in court to contradict that, but may cross-examine prosecution witnesses and point out if their evidence doesn't stand up).

I finally found the section that answered my question clearly:

rC20 Where you are a BSB authorised individual, you are personally responsible for your own conduct and for your professional work. You must use your own professional judgment in relation to those matters on which you are instructed and be able to justify your decisions and actions. You must do this notwithstanding the views of your client, professional client, employer or any other person.

I came back to the post too late to edit, but in fairness I should say that the 'barristers take instruction from clients' comment when I have asked about this before did not come from any of our legal posters.