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

I really hope he doesn't. I don't think any of them deserve to get off scot free.
(I mean financially - reputationally I think they're all to varying degrees paying a price. )

I can't see any outcome where he doesn't pay most of it, and the quicker it's dealt with, the quicker it'll become tomorrow's metaphorical chip paper.

I'd far rather lose money than my reputation. It's much easier to remake money and far less shameful to lose it.

@binkieand what is his exorbitant hourly rate? Probably less than Elton John’s.

Same. I've no idea whether he will do this. But in his shoes, given the joint and several liability and the much lesser resources of some of the others I'd be tempted to bow early to the inevitable.

I think it depends on the dynamic between them all. EJ is clearly the wealthiest but swallowing everyone’s costs when Liz and Harry for example are also wealthy enough to pay their share would be a very generous act.

If the insurer does refuse to pay out, is announced in the public sphere? Or only if the litigants bleat about it?

If your car insurer refused to pay up after an accident your friends would only know if you chose to tell them.

The insurance industry is probably rife with interest and speculation on this case though so leaks and gossip may appear in time ie this week as presumably the claimants have passed the £9.5m interim payment over to them to make as part of the payout.

It might be dealt with between them as a private mates-rates loan. That probably saves the most face between them. Brushed under the rug quickly, but EJ gets the money back.

SF and LH will be on Strictly and I'm a Celeb in the next couple of years I expect! But I can't see PH being particularly happy about paying back a loan.

March 18, 2022: Gavin Burrows (the star witness whose claims of phone hacking and bugging brought key claimants into the case) had a violent confrontation with lead researcher Graham Johnson at Johnson's home (the home he shares with Emma Jones - on the board of Hacked Off) and withdrew his cooperation.

March 21, 2022: Just three days later, the claimants submitted their application for After The Event (ATE) insurance cover to Temple Legal Protection.

Put like that @GwendolineFairfax8 it's hard to see on the face of it why anyone would pay out, yet they are supposed to have regular meetings about the case and be candid with the insurer.

No doubt other stuff in play

Where's this from?

My legal knowledge here is very limited. But this whole case stinks of 'my truth'.

Their version of events, often very skewed, with no evidence or back up. Just their interpretation which has been twisted to fit their narrative.

MM herself is particularly famous for it. In 2026 we don't seem to call people out for their bullshit anymore, we seem to allow them to talk and talk and tell 'their truth' like its a right, whilst often innocent people suffer the consequences and the backlash.

Thank god the judge smacked them down and said, no we don't do that here. The law deals in facts, evidence and honesty.

This is what happens when you don't teach people there are consequences for their actions. PH is like the unpunished child who runs rampant as an adult.

Evidence given at trial, I believe.

It seems they never contemplated the fact they could lose, despite earlier warnings from the Judge and had no Plan B for if they did.

As you say MyPurpleHeart it was all a bit my truth and in their eyes my truth is the ONLY truth and must be taken as gospel.

Perhaps the other issue is that Elton and Harry had enough money to just keep going.

Claimants with less access to funds would have had to convince litigation funders that they had a good case.

Oh come on, it isn't that hard to understand why one would be sceptical about medical details being given out willy nilly. I am aware that is naive, especially back at a time when GDPR/safeguarding was not as stringent as it may be now, but I can and do understand the cynicism. Back that up with a man who was telling them what they wanted to hear before reneging. The case was deemed frivolous. They had no concrete evidence. The complaints were not upheld. The case was therefore without merit.
But let's not pretend it was as cut and dried as "my truth".

"The Leveson Report (As it should be)" https://leveson.robertsharp.co.uk

Sorry, I have absolutley no idea what you are talking about. I was referencing MyPurpleHeart's post and commenting that the Claimants in this case did not seem to contemplate the fact that they could lose despite several warnings before it went to trial.

Care to explain what you mean with your post to me?

It is simple enough to understand. I am referring to your comment "all a bit my truth and in their eyes my truth is the ONLY truth and must be taken as gospel".
I am pointing out they had reasons for thinking medical details would be kept private.

Who said anything about medical details

Not that simple to understand apparently

"Daily Mail v Prince Harry: The failed claims brought by the duke and other stars as court costs to be decided | The Independent" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-daily-mail-legal-case-celebrities-elton-john-baroness-lawrence-costs-b3036468.html

Disingenuous.

Michael Gillard (The Upsetter) who made an application to the court

(and I added the Graham Johnson/Emma Jones connection myself).

More from Michael Gillard

The most sensational matter to emerge from the two-day hearing last week was an admission tucked away in correspondence between the claimants and the judge, which was disclosed to The Upsetter under open justice principles.
In the letter, the claimants admitted they were aware their star witness - the private investigator Gavin Burrows - had withdrawn his cooperation before they launched the super claim against the newspaper in 2022.
The gamble to continue the case regardless was catastrophic and now raises the prospect of a fight between the insurers, the claimants and their own lawyers over liability for The Mail’s eye-watering legal bill of £34.8m.

I wish people would stop with the ‘my truth’. It should be just ‘theeeee truth’.

@ThatCyanCat You need to be wary of evidence. A lot of it was not accepted by the judge. It’s far better to read the whole 20 pages of the July judgement, appendix 3 page 416 to get the full position in regards to Burrows and how he was to be treated as a witness. A couple of sentences are not 20 pages of a detailed judgement. So enjoy reading!

Someone's medical details could reach a journalist in several ways:

• journalist hacks a phone/ medical system
• medical staff give or sell info
• person confides in BFF, who then mentions it to someone else, either with the intention of leaking or simply in conversation without meaning to be indiscreet
• person confides in BFF and is overheard, person overhearing passes it on either for money or just as gossip

There are numerous ways confidential information might reach a journalist. Some are illegal, many aren't. The fact that a journalist got confidential information is not proof of any illegal actions, let one that they themselves broke the law.