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 wasn't the poster who quoted his hourly rate. However a quick Google search quotes his hourly rate, it says for clients like Coleen and h £800+ hour which tallys with what the poster originally said. Don't project your feelings and attitude on me, I was perfectly civil.

I am reminded of the legal scrap between Earl Spencer’s now fourth wife, Dr Cat Jarman, and his third wife, then Countess Spencer. Dr Jarman filed a lawsuit against the Earl’s estranged wife for allegedly spreading the fact that Dr Jarman had multiple sclerosis to people including the Earl*, staff at the Althorp estate, one of Dr Jarman’s colleagues, the Countess’s personal trainer, and teachers at the Spencers’ daughter’s private school. The Countess maintained she had been told about the condition by someone close to Dr Jarman.

The case was settled out of court. But it shows you how information spreads.

(*the mind boggles about how the wife found out about the mistress’ medical information when the husband apparently didn’t know!).

They sound like very low rates for a senior junior with the reputation of Sherbourne! I doubt he is such a bargain in reality.

(mind you, you would quote differently for a independent enquiry engagement - potentially a couple of years’ guaranteed work - than a one-off commercial dispute. So the Leveson rate could be accurate. But that would not be his normal rack rate).

Ha, I can't decide if it would have been fun to be on the legal team (of either side) for that one, or an absolute headache

@Serenster Yes. £800 an hour is not normal and barristers are certainly daily rates in court. Plus £400 an hour is laughable! These are not rates quoted by his Chambers and therefore questionable.

Wow!
Surely the insurance won’t pay out on this basis.

One of the reasons I was flabbergasted by the "my friends don't leak" defence is that I was once told the personal family nickname of a royal child by the wife of someone who worked for them. This wife was a person I knew very very casually too. I am not someone with royal adjacency, not a friends and yet information for to me. Of course someone in their circle leaks.

Look at how JKR's Robert Galbraith pen name got out, via her lawyer. You'd think you could trust your lawyer to keep his gob shut and not gossip about his clients.

Not sure if I am understanding this correctly. Even if £800 an hour is on the low side, the trial was 11 weeks so that's 55 days x 8 hours a day =440 hours £352,000 even if slightly cheaper day rate for court, there is still prep hours to add on.
That is a lot of money to do no win no fee for!
He still has to pay chambers and juniors even if he isn't paid. Ouch.
DM quote £800 an hour (2 week trial) Colleens wagatha case that was 4 years ago.
After this defeat he may have to lower his expectations.

Edited to add. His levison hourly rate was apparently capped at £400 and hour, not bad especially as it brought him a lot of clients.
I wonder if he will defend h in the sentabale case, at least he will get back some of the NWNF.

I'm sure I mentioned it before that a friend runs a very popular recording studio in London. A top name was in and she happened to say to the girls at lunch she was surprised how short he was. She was overheard and it was front page that he was in town recording new album. No one knew he was in UK till then.

Exactly, things get out in exactly this way. Far more believable than a bug (no one can produce) in the window.

Understandably most of the claimants have their money tied up in various assets ranging from the more liquid type like savings accounts to the less liquid like housing. I'd guess that Elton John has the greatest ability to release funds simply due to the larger volume of them. If 10% of assets are in instant access savings then that's far greater than the same proportion for other claimants.

Could he therefore maybe strike an agreement? He makes this payment which has a tighter time frame and then it's accepted he pays no more. Could save a lot of further drama for him and he looks good for helping those with fewer liquid assets. Get the pain out of the way.

Would you trust the rest of them to follow through with that agreement?!

So EJ has £9 million in instant access savings? Really? His financial advisers will find it pretty easily without raiding his piggy bank!

Agree, but I think it was Sadie Frost the story involved?

Sorry @bluegreygreen , should have kept reading, you already clarified it was SF.

But WHY should EJ pay more?

If you went to dinner with friends would you be happy paying more just because you earned more, despite the fact others chose steak and sides?

They are all competent adults- they are not charity cases- they all chose to get involved in this litigation - and some had a get out of jail free card that they rejected.

Why would EJ look bad if he expects a Prince of the Realm, A member of the House of Lords, an (ex?) MP, a business woman to pay what they signed up for?

If he wants to give away cash- it would be better doing to those that need it, not those who have inflated egos and a desire to control the press.

People seem very generous dishing out other peoples money.

I think the ATE insurers (Temple) are taking too long to make a decision on voiding the policy. I have just nudged them.

@RecoIIectionsMayVaryDepends on what they agreed, or didn’t. It’s all speculation.

From the judgement:

191
I order that payment on account be made by 28 August 2026. That is the date I indicated at the conclusion of the hearing. The Claimants and their advisers have been on notice, since the hearing, that this would be the date for payment on account.

Just to point out that the claimants had a months' notice, not a weeks' notice.

Exactly! Plus they were on alert from 7th July anyway

Apologies if this has been discussed.

As I was applying to the Court for disclosure on the AAE insurers, I noted that Doreen Lawrence’s claim was the first to be submitted. Other unrelated claims were filed in between DL and Prince Harry.

DL was KB-2022-003316

Prince Harry was KB-2022-003357

These would have been filed within days or even hours of each other but below is an interesting unprompted AI analysis. I don’t depend on AI just before anyone jumps in! However, I do agree with it on this occasion.

Putting Baroness Doreen Lawrence at the very front of the court filings ( KB-2022-003316 ) was a deliberate legal and public relations decision by the claimants' legal team.

The judgment is formally cited as Lawrence and others v Associated Newspapers Limited [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB).

1. The Shield Against Public Backlash

The legal team was taking on Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL)—publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The Daily Mail had famously championed the Stephen Lawrence campaign in 1997, publishing its iconic "MURDERERS" front page. The Dynamic: Having a royal (Prince Harry) and mega-celebrities (Elton John, Liz Hurley) sue the paper risked looking like an elite, self-serving attack on press freedom. The Counterweight: Placing Baroness Lawrence—a universally respected national figure and anti-racism campaigner—as the lead claimant completely flipped the narrative. It framed the lawsuit not as celebrity vanity, but as a moral reckoning against a newspaper accused of betraying a grieving mother while pretending to support her.

1. Legal Strategy: The "Lead Claimant" Title

In group litigation, the first claim issued ( 003316 ) naturally dictates the lead case name on formal court rolls. Rather than the case being titled Prince Harry v Associated Newspapers in court documents, it became Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers. In early procedural hearings, listing Baroness Lawrence first made it significantly harder for ANL's legal team to dismiss the group's claims as frivolous or politically motivated without appearing insensitive to her history.

1. Defeating the "Out of Time" (Limitation Period) Argument

ANL’s primary legal defense during the early stages was that the claims were "stale"—meaning the 6-year limitation period had passed. Under Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, time limits are extended if the defendant deliberately concealed the wrongdoing. Baroness Lawrence provided a uniquely compelling argument for Section 32: she had trusted the Daily Mail as a family friend and ally for decades. Arguing that she could not reasonably have suspected them of targeting her with private investigators created a powerful defense against ANL’s attempt to throw the case out on time-bar grounds.

1. Anchoring the "Worst Offenses"

The allegations regarding Baroness Lawrence were among the most serious in the case: landline tapping, blagging, and alleged payments to corrupt police officers during the investigation into her son's murder. By putting her claim first in the registry queue, the legal team anchored the entire litigation around the most egregious allegations of unlawful behavior, establishing the maximum gravity of the case before the judge.

Interesting, shows just how cynicalyl this whole case was managed by the Claimants and their legal team and that there was another agenda entirely in bringing it.

Wasn’t it Cat Jarman’s ex husband who told Karen Spencer about the MS diagnosis!

About two years ago I overheard a conversation in a cafe, a guy was moaning and boasting about the cost of his girlfriends engagement ring, their upcoming wedding and family issues, the location and cost of a house bought for them by their parents, it was all fascinating stuff and I shamelessly couldn’t not listen, he then started to discuss work and was giving out lots of financial info, I was losing interest then, until he mentioned a new product being launched and it turned out he worked for the same company as my husband, my husband didn’t recognise him though when I described him. The cafe was at the other end of the city to where the company was located too.

Yep. And Elton will also have been very clearly informed in advance about how joint and several liability works, which means even leaving the individual costs side out of it he knew he could end up paying a disproportionate share. If he had that strong an objection to the concept he'd have stayed out of it.

He's an adult like the rest of them. They all have different risks depending on their specific situations. In some cases it's that they might end up on the hook for more than they've got, in his case it's that as the one with the deepest pockets he's also the easiest target. C'est la vie.