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

Thanks for answering, @Serenster.

@GwendolineFairfax8 The Insurance was taken out prior to the hearing! The judge actually trimmed down the claims but my strong guess is that the view was that they would not lose all of them. Had the insurance company or underwriters believed that, they were uninsurable. They clearly took a different view and insured the claimants. It would appear based on the earlier costs hearing. Whatever the case, their business depends on not paying out in every case. Maybe they gambled? Maybe they were misled? Maybe they didn’t get great advice? Who knows? None of us.

Damages for "hurt feelings" articles are not that high in England - under £10K per article.

The insurance was arranged when Gavin Burrows was said to have signed to say he was involved in UIG. An easy win for the claimants, an easy win for the insurers. Rightfully so, had it been true.

You can be awarded compensation for breach of GDPR (and in other areas of law) even if there is no financial loss. I know because I sued the DVLA for giving my personal details to a parking company parasite.

They can be punitive, known as exemplary in UK law.

Are the insurers considering the prospect of winning or the prospect of settling. Both are somewhat intertwined as an advantageous settlement wouldn’t be on the table without the prospect of winning but I just wonder whether the insurers were persuaded by the settlements of Prince H’s previous cases(s).

Gwen - I agree with you, it seems quite odd that an insurer would let this situation arise. They are normally very closely involved in the case if not running the decisions alongside the client. At least that was my experience.

As an aside, there’s an interesting comparison to the sub Postmasters action against the Post Office whereby they were forced into a settlement because their backers wld not support further litigation against the govt backed Post Office. (In that case of course the Postmasters had a strong case but they were up against the deep pockets of govt who wouldn’t give in. In this case, perhaps they miscalculated the deep pockets and determination of the Daily Mail.)

This was from the Post Office’s legal advice on litigation strategy:

the better solution is to try to force the claimants into a collective position where they will either abandon the claims or seek a reasonable settlement. It should be remembered that the claims are financially supported by Freeths, whose fees are at least partially conditional on winning, a third party funder and insurers. Without this support, these proceedings would not have been possible. All three entities will likely have the power to pull their support if the merits of the case drop below a certain level. Our target audience is therefore Freeths, the funder and the insurers who will adopt a cold logical assessment of whether they will get a payout rather than the claimants who may wish to fight on principle regardless of merit

@tramtracks You think the ultra highly paid David Sherborne would run this case with the insurance company? Really? Since when do they have this expertise? They insured based on info they gathered about the case and previous costs hearings. They could still not pay up for all we know!

That is interesting, and very logical, @1977thebest.

The insurance carriers engage their own external solicitors and barristers with plenty of expertise to make sure they are fully up to speed with developments…

I did a bit of digging around last night as I was interested in trying to find out how much information is needed by ATE insurance companies when you apply for insurance.
Probably unsurprisingly, there isn't any clear answer out there, and I suspect depends on the type of case each company typically covers.
Some companies simply want the solicitor's opinion on the case, some ask for counsel's opinion, some ask for any pre-trial letters to be included, some ask for only certain documents to be included and they can ask for others if they want them ...
One thing I did find interesting is that the premium (which I had always assumed to be high) ranges between 20-60% of the costs covered, and payment is deferred. If the party covered loses, the premium is forfeited and the costs are paid; if the party covered wins the premium is paid.

Temple Legal has a FAQs page Temple Legal FAQs

A couple of relevant snippets:

What information helps us assess a case at the outset?
A clear case summary is key. This would usually include background facts, your view on merits, any known weaknesses and how these may be addressed, along with key documents such as pre-action correspondence. Ideally the parties will have exchanged a Letter of Claim and received a Letter of Response so that we can evaluate both sides of the case.

How strong does a case need to be before it can be considered?
Each case is assessed on its own merits, based on the available evidence and overall prospects of success. We are generally looking at an assessment of 60% in respect of legal merits, but for defamation and privacy cases we are looking at a 51% threshold.

Is it payment day today?

Yes - interim payment due to be paid today.

Am imagining Paul Dacre frantically refreshing his banking app until it drops

Was the deadline 1pm? 🍿

Maybe PH delivered it in cash - grubby used bank notes - would explain the OTT Trumpian motorcade ….. from Birmingham …. ffs

It would be funny if EJ decided to send it all in pennies.

Exactly this. I know for a fact. I’ve had a long civil case and my insurers were in every mtg and every decision. Perhaps some insurers take a back seat I don’t know. But in my direct first hand experience, mine didn’t.

I was thinking in a brown envelope (or two) in a service station......... 😁

They didn't do a very good job! 97 claims and not a single one stuck. Every day that was reported on in court there seemed a complete lack of evidence, some laughably so. I assumed that the non reporting days held the smoking gun or written summations but no. Just weeping, irritated complainants and the ever grand standing sherborn.

What happens if it isn’t paid today? Do they send the bailiffs round?

Oh I hope so. Imagine the scenes at Chez Sussex.

Do you think that's why H moved? So the bailiffs couldn't find him?