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

Exactly @bluegreygreen and you can pull out if you are 'professionally embarrassed ', although it will really fuck off your client.

DS clearly never got there which is a really interesting judgement on his part given the verdict. I do wonder if they thought the courts might defer to Harry because of Royalty, like Prince Edward back in the baccarat scandal.

You can pull out if you are 'professionally embarrassed ', although it will really fuck off your client

You actually have a professional ethical obligation to withdraw your services in those circumstances, and the feelings of your client are irrelevant.

It looks like DS may have been too personally invested in these claims to see the problems with the cases that should surely have been apparent (the judges in the preliminary hearings certainly gave them enough warnings).

@bluegreygreen A really thoughtful analysis.

I have not been as dedicated on these threads as many posters but like you I understand professional standards. DS does seem to have stretched professional boundaries whilst presenting his clients case.e.g. The breadth of the case and trawling for evidence to back up beliefs. If he has a case to answer the BSB should do their job.

I cannot believe DS wasn’t honest about the chances of success but potentially some, if not all, of the claimants have such a conviction they have been wronged that facts and evidence don’t matter because they know they are right.

PH will go to his grave believing ANL hacked him, no one could ever convince him otherwise. PH also doesn’t seem to understand personal responsibility and accountability but that is taking us outside of this thread.

Thank you @MeetMeOnTheCorner and @bluegreygreen that's very interesting.

Seems to me like this was a case of ego, activisim and the overwhelming desire to have the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday shut down as a publication as the News of the World was purely because they intensly dislike the Mail and MoS for their political stance and reach and also to force harsh restrictions on the Press as a whole. It smacks of a crusade particularly with PH's dragon slaying rhetoric.

I think DS had a problem on his hands the moment he realised this was going all the way, and that ANL actually weren’t going to be the convenient client cash cow that he thought they’d be.

Looks, to my non-legal eyes, like DS ego and the greed of his clients got in the way of what should have been a clear case of insufficient evidence to proceed.

As I understand it though, there is most responsibility on the clients

I'd wondered that myself, @MeetMeOnTheCorner, but it was clarified upthread that the client still bears responsibility for the claims ... a bit like hiring an accountant not making you immune to HMRC requirements

Edited to change case to claims

You are correct - the overriding duty of a barrister is to the Court, not their client.

Looking at some of the particular rules in the Bar Standards Board rules (for Barristers), this includes a duty to act with honesty and with integrity and not draft any statement of case, witness statement, affidavit or other document containing:

a. any statement of fact or contention which is not supported;
b. any contention which is not properly arguable;
c. any allegation of fraud, without clear instructions to allege fraud and reasonably credible material which establishes an arguable case of fraud;
d. (in the case of a witness statement or affidavit) any statement of fact other than the evidence the witness would give if the witness were giving evidence orally.

The last few make the allegations that ANL’s senior management lied to the Leveson Enquiry (which is at base an allegation of fraud), and the reliance on the witness statement that was rejected before proceedings were filed, look problematic.

Remember Evan Harris was actively trying to recruit claimants.

Sherborne won cases previously where there was actual evidence of UIG by Mirror Group and News of the World

I think Sherborne lost the case for Johnny Depp

He won for Coleen Rooney because it was so ridiculous

@Serenster Yes, management of the case in court is down to the barrister but they cannot tell their clients what to say and how to act. They can advise claimants to stop, but claimants don’t have to agree. How to manage this case was obviously hugely problematic and of course they should have withdrawn. But undoubtedly they would not so it’s a massive balancing act that DS probably got wrong. But Harry thought the judge was wrong!

I wonder at what point Temple were aware of Burrow’s retraction.

Harry as Mr Mischief’s ongoing connections to a journalist, Elton’s own publicist releasing information as did the Palace I recall and Doreen’s retraction for cash debacle must also cause them to question on what basis their cover was extended.

In summary then, the claimants, as the ones bringing the case to court, have an obligation to assess the case as it continues through litigation, and a vicarious responsibility for the actions of the legal team on their behalf.

The barristers, as independent professionals, must act in the best interests of their clients, but have an over-riding professional duty to the court in the interests of justice.

Should either group act in an inappropriate manner, there is redress either through the indemnity costs system in the case of the first group, or via the Bar Standards Board in the case of the second.

Nicklin frequently uses the word “claimant” in his judgement. Don’t forget, costs are awarded for claimants to pay, not the barristers. So there is responsibility. What we don’t know is if they were appraised of their weak position by the barristers. But they can withdraw a case if there are extreme difficulties with it. Or did the claimants here believe what they believed was sufficient?

What we don’t know is if they were appraised of their weak position by the barristers

This is very true, @MeetMeOnTheCorner, but I thought it had been said that the legal team are expected to advise about the strength of a case?

No doubt Harry at least would claim he hadn't been told (he's done it before ...) but if they really hadn't been informed doesn't that create the delicious possibility of someone suing their own legal team?

@Puzzledandpissedoff Yes, they definitely are but as the case proceeded, were they? Or was it that they ploughed on regardless of advice? Harry is known for being headstrong and is definitely angry and aggrieved. Whatever happened in the lead up to the court action, it was ill judged.

What's the process for costs court case? Will DS be in court fighting to lower the costs or is it just ANL lawyers facing a judge?

And then as you say, a potential claim against DS by his own claimants. Complete lay person here but the judgement did seem to point to failure to follow good legal practice, such as the Witness statement

A barrister is certainly not going to take a case on no win no fee if it is hopeless. So I don't believe for a minute sherborn was charging his usual exorbitant hourly rate. Especially as it has damaged his reputation.

Layperson here too, Cars4Gov, so I'm afraid I don't know the precise costs process, but I'm pretty sure it's been said the claimants are supposed to sort out payment for the joint costs between themselves, and that if they can't - or if they want to appeal the fees - then a "costs judge" gets involved

Somebody please correct me if I've got anything wrong here, but it also occurs to me that any further argument will just make the bills even higher, and while Harry might well be subbed by dad others may not have access to that sort of money

Sorry that should read wasn't, I don't believe he wasn't charging his usual rate.

@Cars4Gov Puzzled is correct - the parties are supposed to come to an agreement and if they can't (highly likely in this case) it goes before a costs judge.

In the section where Judge Nicklin made the decision that there shouldn't be a cap on the indemnity costs, he explains that the costs judge will assess ANL's costs to ensure they are reasonable, and that the claimants can challenge them.

182
The consequence is that Associated’s recoverable costs will be determined by the ordinary process of assessment, applying the basis of assessment ordered by the Court. That process provides the appropriate safeguard against unreasonable costs. If Associated seeks to recover costs which were not reasonably incurred or are unreasonable in amount, the Claimants will be entitled to challenge them and the Costs Judge will determine those issues on evidence.

That makes more sense, @binkie163!

He seems like a genuinely decent man. It must be so awful not knowing where his son’s remains are. What a horrible thing to keep from a parent.

So potentially the cost will go up by a few £m.

ANL might make a part 36 offer. Eg ask for £25 million and if not accepted, they only have to beat that at assessment to get interest and costs (I think that’s how it works - should ask Hugh Grant - he’s the pro!)

I think if I were EJ, I'd be tempted to chuck all the money at it just to fuck it all off.