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

It is highly defamatory and I cannot share publicy at present. I will as soon as I can.

@GwendolineFairfax8 You have nudged an insurance company to make a decision. Normally the policy holder does that. I asked if you were the policy holder (in effect) and had paid the premium. If not, what is your role in nudging them to pay up?

You know we are rooting for you. Must be getting close to the date. Head high and give them both barrels x

You pay court costs like this directly to the other party. They don’t have to hold them on trust, but if for example the other side is successful on appeal and the award gets reversed you do have to pay them back.

But, having said that, you can pay money into court in some instances - mainly if the court makes an order that a claimant who is based overseas has to pay a sum into court as security for the defendant’s costs if claimant loses (on the basis that they may just decide not to pay a costs award as realistically, people won’t pursue an international claim for costs - it would be hugely expensive). The Court Funds Office holds the money until the case ends or the court orders its release.

I am not the policy holder and I am not asking them to pay up - quite the opposite. My role is someone who can smell a rat - that’s all.

This is why this thread has been so informative. People have been able to ask the sort of questions we've all been wondering about or ponder on issues without there being any snide responses or condescending replies. Those with specific knowedge have imparted it with simple clarity.

Thanks again to everyone

@GwendolineFairfax8 So you have informed them of a rat? Dk they not have their highly paid barrister to do that? Why are you so interested in the insurance claim?

Thank you @Serenster - both for the information and for giving me another rabbit hole to wander down ...

I am interested in the insurers because I believe they are connected to Hacked Off.

What is your interest?

I didn’t realise Temple insurance might be connected to Hacked off!
That would explain their perhaps looking at the more favourably.
I wonder if the other insurance companies covering the claim are aware of that connection?

I have no proof Temple Insurance is connected. I am interested in the AAE insurers.

Ah. You’re talking about Anti-Avoidance Endorsement, an extension to After-The-Event (ATE) litigation insurance?

Would these usually be two different insurance companies?

Often the same - but if the insurer doesn’t want to add AAE, this can happen

If the primary insurer refuses any AAE on their contract, the client asks a secondary financial entity —such as a Third-Party Litigation Funder to issue a Deed of Indemnity directly to the court/opponent.

I am also interested, I have first hand experience of a vexatious civil (work) case which took 6 years to finally settle. During this time the individual had persuaded 3 consecutive law firms to represent him on a contingency fee basis.

My insurers were back insured by a number of US based outfits. Eventually it settled - for a tiny amount of damages but the costs were paid. I cannot describe how the process affected me. An emotionally driven claimant with either deep pockets or an axe to grind is the worst case scenario to defend against.

The post trial interviews with the journalists, accused of criminal behaviour - with no evidence whatsoever, were literally heartbreaking. Their lives and those of their families have been also hugely affect by this case, which also seemed incredibly vexatious and completely without merit.

Just because some journalists on other papers (NOTW) were involved in criminality/phone hacking does not mean that others in the profession were also engaged in this behaviour. Prince Harry seems to be using his deep pockets and those of others to wage a war against all the press. It is inexcusable.

I think Sherborne (representing Harry et al) will want to put this sorry case behind him after his success in Wagatha Christie.

I guess Doreen was hoping for a settlement as insurers usually do settle as a trial can be tricky to navigate successfully even if you are innocent of the claims. The DM looks like it was self funding and chose to defend the case to trial - good on them. But it must have been absolutely terrifying and stressful for those involved.

@GwendolineFairfax8 None. Other than if Temple pay up but I’m not sure we will know that. Unless there’s a chatty rat of course.

@GwendolineFairfax8 So which insurance company did you nudge? As you do not know of another one, was it Temple? Seems a bit odd to me.

I nudged Temple - I have my reasons

Leaky associates 🤣

@tramtracks

Sherborne might want to put this case behind him but he won’t be able to.

A monkey could have won Coleen’s case (no disrespect to Coleen).

Oh, God! Just when I thought I had a solid understanding of what might be go8ng on, another level of intrigue emerges....

Colleen had already done all the work, watertight. All he had to do was present it and use Colleen's evidence to challenge vardy.
I will never understand why vardy took Colleen to court.

Because, like Harry, Vardy believed if she told her truth it would become ‘the truth’?

Got it, thanks Gwen.

Just so there is some clarity: ATE insurance is offered by Temple. Their web site explains this. BTE and ATE both offered.

I still don’t understand why the poster gave the insurance comment a “nudge”. It’s surely nothing to do with her?

Because she thought she would make a fortune. IIRC, Coleen had offered to settle out of court, presumably for the sake of a quiet life, but RV turned it down.