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

The Independent article is behind a paywall/registration wall.

Most of the articles referred to in the cases brought did not involve medical details.

There were 2 medical stories that I recollect:

The first referred to EJ. He complained it must have been due to phone tapping, and that the details were incorrect. ANL were able to show that the details were the ones that his publicist had put out.

The second referred to LH. She complained that the story was intrusive and must have been due to phone tapping or blagging (where a journalist makes a phone call and misrepresents who they are). The journalist (Katie Nicholl) was able to reference the source she obtained it from, and also recall the phone call she made to LH to check if the story was true. LH denied it, and the story did not run, so the only reason we know anything about it is this court case.
KN also agreed that the story would have been intrusive and was not one that would have been followed up today.

ETA KN's source was not a hospital source, but someone close to LH, to my recollection.

Agree and would add

staff members leak (despite confidentiality agreements)
previous girlfriends/boyfriends leak

etc etc

Do you know how to find out how much we paid for this? Every freedom of information request I have made has resulted in ‘not our department’

It's also important to remember that the litigation process has been going on since 2022, and there have been several pre-trial hearings.

Part of that process includes disclosure, where each side sees the evidence that the other side will be relying on in court.
The claimants and their legal team saw the defendants' evidence well before the case came to trial, as well as having the warnings from the judge regarding what evidence was needed to prove their case.

Still none the wiser and I was merely quoting and adding to MyPurpleHeart's reference to my truth, the well worn phrase deployed by H&M.

You sem to be in quite a tizz about my comment which is rather odd.

It was quoted in a much earlier part of this thread. I do wish people would read the threads. Do an advanced search. I would guess EJ out earns them all.

Totally agree by saying my truth it immediately states it is not the truth and frankly I dimiss anything that comes after my truth as nowhere near the actual truth.

@binkie163 - I don't know about that re DS and his rates. I was thinking he was expecting ANL to settle and therefore his fees would have been ultimately paid by them.

To be fair - there are a lot of posts! I miss stuff sometimes and I am massively invested 😊

Sherborne was no win no fee. He thought ANL would settle - and he would get paid but also it would leave the door wide open for all his new complainants who had been overheard in a busy cafe or leaked information to their chums who leaked to their chums etc.

My truth is ok for e.g. my feelings. If I was upset I was upset, even if someone else thinks I 'shouldn't ' be upset. I think that's where the expression originated.

It's not ok for things that can be objectively true/ untrue.

And even if my truth is that I am upset, it doesn't follow that other people have to do what I want to prevent/ compensate for my upset. I am responsible for dealing with my emotions.

Spectacularly backfired for him then. Reputational damage and nothing to show for it...serves him right.

So he earnt from the case exactly what he was worth? Good to know.

@binkie163 My guess is no one knows and I’ve been on the thread! Plus barristers are a daily rate so neither you nor anyone else know unless you are from his chambers.

My error: the second story was SF, not LH.

Why ask then?

I used to practise defamation law and the above is completely correct. Indeed, there's even other scenarios I saw happening that aren't detailed here.

Quite a bit of my work was stopping the press print stories about the health issues about celebrities which the press had learned of through people selling information, or wanting to sell info, to the tabloids.

I know for an absolute fact that a staff member of the Priory phoned the Sun to alert them that a celebrity client of mine had checked in, and why.

I'm not remotely connected to celebrity circles, but I knew one celeb was expecting twins before it was public knowledge as my SIL is tangentially related to her. And much more awfully, I knew that the private mum of a famous (top tier) rock star had an invasive medical procedure because my nurse (ex)friend told me.

@DandyAF That is no doubt true and was ANL defence. They did not blag or hack the info. They were given it!

@binkie163 Because I don’t believe the hourly rate was quoted - let alone accurately. Why are you so aggressive! This is quite a civil conversation and you seemed to suggest you knew what his rate £ was. I rather suspect you don’t and it’s not on this thread either.

Anyone else know what DS is charged out at by his Chambers?

There is also the scenario so frequent it's a meme - talking on your phone on a train.

A few weeks ago when I was on a train overground train when someone sitting near me started having a long telephone conversation. From that I gathered they were a child protection barrister talking to someone giving them instructions on a case. I couldn't help but listen - didn't have any headphones on me - and I found it increasingly uncomfortable as they talked about the child's medical history and actions of the child and parent.

They didn't mention names though so I have no idea who it is, but if I'd really wanted to find out what the case was I probably could have with some intense investigation, given the barrister had some distinguishing characteristics and the location of the place they were travelling to (which has a court),

@bluegreygreen and @DandyAF . I've had similar. I was sitting opposite a chap on the train who was having a conversation about his company's upcoming quarterly & end of year results. I have no doubt he thought I was some harmless 60 odd yr old woman (which I am) & it didn't matter. It was commercially sensitive information. This harmless 60 odd year old woman used to have a reasonably senior job for a multinational company so is not completely dim about commerce. Now I don't do insider trading (It's not the way I was brought up as Princess Anne might say 😊) nor am I the sort to go to a newspaper / trade magazine but the man was being foolish.

Sometimes it's conspiracy , it can also be cockup.

I gathered they were a child protection barrister talking to someone giving them instructions on a case.

I once had similar, except it was solicitors/barristers talking about care proceedings in person, not on the phone. The town we were all travelling from is a place where everybody knows everybody and through my own job I knew quite a lot of people there, so it was very possible I might have known someone who knew the girl in question.

There was also the story relating to SF's ectopic pregnancy which I did think was a low blow but could have been sourced in a number of ways.

BUT - The story ran in 2003 and I don't understand why she didn't sue before 20 years had passed.

PLUS in 2010 SF wrote a book that covered the incident in much more detail and sold the rights to serialize these sections of the book in the Daily Mail

Then between 2016 and 2020 she chose to sue over the original story