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

But that's not the same as people thinking he should pay or that it will look bad if he doesn't.

If ANL go for the easiest option that is understandable, but the idea that he should pay simply because he is wealthier is bizarre.

Even if Sherborne was hired on a 'no win no fee' basis, presumably the solicitors used to bring the claim weren't?

I was referring to your comment about them all knowing what they signed up for. One can acknowledge that Elton John's wealth obviously means he could be on the hook for more when he chose to throw his hat in with much less wealthy people and also that hw might find it the most hassle free and reputation saving option, without having to agree that it's fair. They're different points.

When you get to a certain level of wealth or you're a company, there is always more to these cases than the legal merits or money, eg optics and publicity.

Which is why I think @ThatCyanCat (I think it was you?!) has a point when they say Elton John may be tempted to pay it all off to get this concluded as quickly as possible. He could always have arrangements with the others to pay him back behind the scenes.

Something that occurred to me is that EJ paying it would be taking the reins, or part of them, firmly from Harry. It would be a way of not allowing Harry to drag this on or create more bad publicity. It's possible that's what EJ would like to do now, to take control and end the damn thing now it's been a disaster publicly, financially and legally.

Not bizarre at all. The wealthiest person is likely to be the easiest and best option for getting the money!

I think @RecoIIectionsMayVary is saying that suggesting in principle that EJ should pay simply because he is richer doesn't make sense. The claimants were all adults with agency, all hold the same accountability, and all in law have the same standing (jointly and severally liable).

That is separate to agreeing that it makes sense that ANL are likely to pursue EJ, or even that EJ may decide for himself that paying would clear the whole mess up quickly.

Has there been a suggestion of an appeal ?

@bluegreygreen I think they are jointly and severally liable. ANL won’t be going after anyone. It’s money paid to the court. I believe. They haven’t agreed final costs yet either. That could drag on. So I don’t think EJ will be doing much yet. The payment due shortly is an interim payment and how they pay that, is up to them.

I haven't heard of any, @Mylovelygreendress.

From the summary

The Court has set a timetable for any application(s) for permission to appeal in respect of the decisions of 7 July 2026 and today. Any request for permission to appeal must be filed by 2 October 2026. Unless the Court considers that a hearing is required, any application for permission to appeal will be determined by the Judge on the written papers. The deadline for filing any Appellant’s Notice with the Court of Appeal has been extended to 6 November 2026.

As I understand it, if they want to appeal the claimants first need to seek permission from Judge Nicklin. If he refuses, they would then need to seek permission from the Court of Appeal. Only if they receive permission can they then appeal.

I don't know on what basis they could appeal. I think there needs to be new evidence, an error in law or an error in fact on the part of the judge.

Yes, the claimants not liking the Judge’s decision is not grounds to appeal 😊

@MeetMeOnTheCorner

I think they are jointly and severally liable.

Yes, I said that.

ANL pursuing anyone obviously presupposes that there has been an issue with the claimants paying the amount.
If there has been no issue with payment, there will be no need for pursuit.

It's about principles v pragmatism, I'd say. @DandyAF post was an excellent explanation of the latter, especially the bit about the value of not having Harry at the wheel.

If he arranged some kind of repayment from the others (he'd never get it back in full), he'd have to be prepared for yet more leaks about the details, any arguments and so on. I'm not sure I'd be willing to risk it.

I don't know how his wealth is spread, how long it would take him or what he'd have to do to pay a few tens of millions but if it's at all possible, I think I'd be prepared to write off a few million when I'd still have a few hundred million, if it meant the whole thing just ended. Famous people have court cases, this isn't his first legal rodeo and if it ends quietly and everyone just assumes he covered at least most of it (can't see how he won't have to, one way or another), it's not going to affect his career significantly. Even if it did, he'd still be fine!

I'd probably just do that and then strike some names off my Christmas card list...

@bluegreygreen Well exactly. So why is there discussion on ANL chasing anyone? It’s either going to be an arrangement between the parties or they fight it out again in court. The money is collected by the court and the judge ordered an interim payment. The full amount is not yet known.

Would the £9.5 million get paid into ANL’s lawyers’ Client Account, not the Court?

That’s exactly what I was thinking, I’m a bit confused about the claim it’s being paid to the court, surely it should be going to ANL (via their solicitors). But then I haven’t read all the documentation, so I’m not fully informed.

I don't know but I would have thought the court holds the money in an escrow account until all the costs etc have been agreed / paid and at some point the money is then given to ANL. This quite often happens in eg business deals , money in escrow until all the terms are met. I'm guessing but this sort of arrangement would sound credible to me.

Very happy to be corrected by someone with Actual Knowledge of these circumstances.

I was being deliberately circumspect and respecting that two other posters said the costs go to the court and I hadn’t read the judgment…

But to be real, courts do not take and keep a party’s costs. It goes from one party to the party. It’s their money. The courts do not have the mechanisms to take care of hundreds of parties’ costs.

I can't find anything in the Civil Procedure Rules to suggest that the courts have anything to do with holding money.

CPR 44

I had assumed, like others, that the money was transferred from one solicitors' client account to another.

Crossposted with @DandyAF

Ah , OK @DandyAF - you know better than me. & actually the first payment has been ordered so no reason for it not to go straight to ANL. As when the balance is ordered. I take it all back I'm wrong. It's not the first time , won't be the last 😊

ETA @bluegreygreen just seen your post too.

Oh we all have moments of being wrong, and you were giving a suggestion, not stating something categorically! I just thought it would be a good idea to nip any further misconceptions in the bud

From what I understand the court has decided the claimants should pay ANL a certain amount by a certain date.

If the claimants don't, ANL goes to court to enforce the ruling, from one, some or all of the claimants. Presumably by the same legal means as any other creditor can use to pursue money it is owed.

The money is not handled by tbe court.

I hope you are doing well @GwendolineFairfax8

Are you able to share any details on what you've said to Temple please?

@GwendolineFairfax8 Did you pay the premium then?

please explain