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'm enjoying learning about these different types of litigation insurance.

But it seems (to me) inconceivable, considering the costs involved, that Temple and their fellow ATE insurers (if they were sharing the risk as other PP's have suggested), let the cover continue for the whole case.

Who was monitoring the case (and costs) at Temple? What on earth were they discussing with DS and his cohorts as the case progressed? Surely they were having regular meetings to discuss the case.

Where were the alarm bells with Temple and their fellow ATE insurers (if as other PP's have suggested) they shared the risk?

Oh to have been a fly on the wall, when Nicklin's judgement was released. (the main one, not the costs one).

As an aside, I do find it odd, that had the claimants won, not only would ANL have faced paying all the costs and damages but they would have had to apologise. Probably front page as well.

Where is their apology? Where are their damages (not the costs of defending the case?

I didn't know Colleen had offered to settle, I bet RV felt sick after that, serves her right.

@Cornflowers35 Temple have a very experienced barrister advising them. They really do have the details they need to make decisions. They are not amateurs who are guessing. They also have a contract. Depends what is in the contract and the view they take of how the case was conducted and prospects of winning appeared lower than the 60.% they have on their web site. What the underwriters think is another matter.

I'm sure they do, but they seem to have missed a great deal. Especially once Burrows retracted his "statement".

@Cornflowers35 You have no idea about that either. They took a view on the clients and what they could offer in the insurance terms. They might have thought the Burrows issues were not insurmountable and this case didn’t fall solely because of him.

@Cornflowers35 I agree, learning about the insurance is interesting.

Re damages: as I understand it, in England and Wales (and I think the rest of the UK, but I know the legal systems are different), damages are awarded to return the claimant to their original position, i.e to make good a loss, and are not 'punitive' as they are in the US.

I don't think anyone answered the original question I had about insurance (I think on the previous thread) and you may be able to answer it, @MeetMeOnTheCorner.

When a party (or their legal team) is applying for ATE insurance, do they fill in an application form with a summary of their case, or are they asked to include the evidence they will rely on in court?

Of course I don't.

But it's all part of what makes this case so interesting.

I'm sure you're right re damages.

But still no apology for the ANL and their journalists, some of whom were accused of some pretty horrendous behaviour.

I do know it won't work that way. I'm just thinking out loud.

With all due respect, may I remind you that all 97 allegations were dismissed. Do you not consider looking at the evidence (or lack of) even a tiny amount of due diligence would have established this?!

Anyway, the FCA is concerned going by the number of emails I am receiving.

Wonder who was underwriting the claimants’ insurance policy/policies and what they think of it all?

Do they have a route to object to any perceived shenanigans?

Yes, good move on her part and having read what she said it wasn’t purely tactical - she found the process an ordeal and it took her time and attention away from her children.

I think at one point it also actually looked bad for her because it looked like she was going to have to prove that Vardy herself personally leaked the stories, which obviously Rooney couldn't do. But then, if memory serves, I think the court ruled that she only had to prove that someone from Vardy's team had done it with Vardy's instruction/knowledge/approval or something like that? Can't quite remember the details. There was definitely a point where it looked like settling might be the best option.

But then, if memory serves, I think the court ruled that she only had to prove that someone from Vardy's team had done it with Vardy's instruction/knowledge/approval or something like that? Can't quite remember the details.

Rebecca Vardy’s defence team made a big deal of the fact that Colleen Rooney couldn’t prove it was Rebecca herself taking the false instagram stories to the press. But helpfully she didn’t need to as the instagram post that she was being sued for stated “it was Rebecca Vardy’s account…”. The inclusion of that last word was vitally important, as by using it Colleen had only suggested someone with access to the account was to blame.

But I think the argument was that the entire post was phrased in such a way that it would lead people to think Rooney was accusing Vardy personally ("someone who I trusted", "who it could be", "which account/individual" and so on) even if it did have that sort of disclaimer at the end.

IIRC, it was ruled that yes, the post did amount to an accusation of Vardy personally because that is what it would make people think... but then there was a further ruling that this was fair if it turned out Vardy had been instructing someone to do it for her, or at least knew about it and was perfectly happy with it. Because in terms of any reputational damage, it amounts to the same thing; if Vardy instructs her PA, say, to leak stories for her, people aren't going to think that's so much better than physically leaking it herself.

That is, IIRC. Perhaps I'm wrong? Can't remember for sure.

I didn't follow the case as to me it was 2 extraordinarily wealthy women arguing over social media posts. 1st world problems. I am old enough to think if you don't want anyone to know something don't tell anyone. Even on a private account there isn't much expectation of privacy. People gossip.
I only caught the reporting at the end.

And like pp that's how I feel about the ANL case. Yes they get their legal fees paid but doesn't give the accused their time back, the anxiety and I imagine unpaid time for journalists to go over their work decades old.
If the claimants had won they would expect compensation.

Yes you're right. Vardy won the initial argument in 2020, the judge agreed it looked like it was putting the blame solely on her. But then the case carried on.

A lot of people said this, but Rooney was being sued; she had to settle or defend. Vardy wouldn't accept the offer to settle so Rooney was forced to go to court. What else could she do?

You would honestly think vardy had better things to do!

Vardy's a money grabber, so I get why she prioritised what she'd have seen as income generating activity. Her problem was she took it too far. If she'd taken Colleen's settlement offer, it would've been a sound bit of business. Cash for fuck all.

It’s been a while since I read the decision, but yes, you are right! Colleen started by arguing that because she used the word “account” then it could be understood to mean someone other than Rebecca was responsible, but that was rejected at a preliminary hearing. As stated in the final judgment:

The single, natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of that would be conveyed to the hypothetical ‘ordinary reasonable reader’ was determined as a preliminary issue by Warby J (as he then was), following a hearing on 19 November 2020… The single meaning is:

“Over a period of years Ms Vardy had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms Rooney’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories, thereby making public without Ms Rooney’s permission a great deal of information about Ms Rooney, her friends and family which she did not want made public.”

In the long run though this wasn’t an issue as the judge found that Rebecca Vardy was party to the disclosure of various instagram posts. He held it likely was likely that her agent Ms Watt (she who “lost” her phone in the North Sea) undertook the direct act of passing the information to a journalist. But he found Rebecca Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the Private Instagram Account, sending her screenshots of Colleen Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt.

“In my judgment, the conclusions that I have reached as to the extent to which the claimant engaged in disclosing to The Sun information to which she only had access as a permitted follower of an Instagram account which she knew, and Ms Rooney repeatedly asserted, was private, suffice to show that the single meaning is substantially true”.

(It is a complete defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true).

Honestly, Rebecca Vardy had a terrible case, even with her agent (“CW” below) losing her phone and so not being able to disclose if she had any WhatsApp conversations with journalists. This text exchange was so damning!

[RV]: Story.... Danny Drinkwater arrested x
[CW]: For what?
[RV]: Crashed his car drunk with 2 girls in it.... both in hospital one with broken ribs x
[CW]: Fuck. When?
[RV]: He’s only just been let out of the cells x
[RV]: Last night! X
[RV]: I want paying for this x
[CW]: Which police station?
[CW]: They would have to get the police station to confirm before they can write it x
[RV]: Hale area... was at a house party last night x
[CW]: Also do you know what car he has? x
[RV]: Let me find out x
[RV]: He’s only just been let out x
[RV]: It’s bad x
[CW]: What a dick x
[RV]: Range Rover I think... at least £100k worth of damage x
[CW]: Just sent it to Andy halls
[RV]: He’s in big trouble x
[CW]: He replied instantly and said news are already on it
[CW]: Someone leaked it from police station.
[RV]: Fuck someone already tipped it x
…
[CW]: It’s already the sun’s front page tomorrow x
[RV]: Holy FUCK ,
[CW]: Is he john’s client?
[RV]: I’m fuming I didn’t give this to you earlier x
[RV]: No he’s not x
[CW]: Me too that would have been a fortune [two crying with laughter emojis]

@Serenster, as you're about, may I ask you my question from upthread?

When a party (or their legal team) is applying for ATE insurance, do they simply complete an application with a summary of their case, or are they asked to include the evidence they will rely on in court?

I don’t actually know bluegreygreen - I have never applied for funding or ATE insurance for litigation!

I have worked on matters where insurers who have a different interest in the outcome of the claim have been involved (i.e. one of the parties will be able to claim insurance to cover their losses etc as part of their standard insurance cover - public liability, directors and officers etc), however, and they have insisted on seeing the formal prospects of success advice from the Counsel team, and sought regular updates on that. That kind of advice is standard for corporates, who need it to ensure they go through appropriate internal governance in relation to the litigation (in some cases, depending on the amount at stake, issuing the claim/defending or settling it will be a Board-level decision). But the claimants here were a group of individuals, who obvioulsy all make their own decisions. I imagine the insurer must have sought advice - whether theirs or its own - on prospects before the claim was issued.