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

Apologies as this has probably been covered - does the insurance cover the claimants costs, or was it only cover if they were unsuccessful ?

I know I've said this before, but I can not see it all being NWNF- maybe DS fees* wouldn't be payable but I can't see all the backroom work being free.

• Does he charge a higher rate for NWNF, so that if he won he got a greater amount of money - I just can't see him doing anything altruistically.

Sadie Frost seems to have been involved with Hacked Off at a very early stage as she was exchanging e-mails with Evan Harris back in 2016 about suing ANL.

She has also been a very high profile claimant in suing the press - IIRC she was awarded over £260,000 when she won her case against Mirror group back in 2015.

IIRC the insurance was for adverse legal costs to cover any of ANL's costs that they were ordered to pay. Currently there is an £18 million gap between the insurance and what ANL spent (although it may be deemed that the costs were excessive)

They still have to cover their own costs

... and they have to hope that the insurers decide to pay up

Anjlee Sangani is launching a referral only, "independent private client Boutique" later this year.

Her website also says that she is involved with a couple of legal pro-bono foundations so I wonder is one of these might be picking up DL's costs?

Oh and her one page, influencer style, website has a testimonial from Hugh Grant .... (hope she is paying Taylor Swift for using her music)

https://www.anjleesangani.com/

Elton was very oissed off about his super injunction being made public

He thinks he can dole out advice to others about their risky behaviours while hiding behind a superinjunction to stop his own shenanigans being made public

hope she is paying Taylor Swift for using her music 😬

I detest websites that are supposed to be business ones but tell you nothing about the company, and have no contact details (grumpy mode off).

Interesting.

Her new company appears to be for 'management consultancy activities', not 'solicitors' as the first one is.

Her first company 2024 accounts showed a balance of almost £22,000, better than any of the previous years.
The 2025 accounts show a balance of almost £276,000.

I’m withholding judgment until we get the cost ruling , I have hopes but I’m not holding my breath!

I think it’s pure speculation what the claimants will be paying their solicitors and their barristers. Barristers chambers levy a fee from barristers for “running costs” but “no fee, no win” won’t pay anyone anything towards running costs of the chambers. Unless someone becomes a chatty rat, we won’t know what the fees were or were not for the claimants.

Hence me holding my judgment.

@jeffgoldblum The cost ruling won’t inform you of the fees for the claimants’ solicitors or barristers - only legal costs to be paid for ANL. The costs agreed for the claimants’ own legal teams are between them and private.

Thank you. I am definitely suffering from information overload.

It’s Tuesday. Will today be the day?

I can understand how a foundation could provide legal services pro bono but would it have several million available once someone has been ordered to pay costs?

@ThatCyanCat It would not be expected to cover costs for the other side. How could it? Where would the money come from?

Barristers and Solicitors tend to do pro bono work in a tiny minority of carefully chosen high profile cases which are definitely going to be published and are very important legal arguments that will affect future cases. Not all cases are like this at all. The lawyers do it for their CVs and because some cases truly need their input and the client has no access to funds. If she’s got access to funds to pay the losers costs (costs awarded to the other side), I would be amazed. Where from?

As an aside, there’s an article in The Times today about a failed litigation funder and how they got into financial difficulty - a very risky and somewhat shadowy business model.

So nothing today so far? Is it likely to be released to the press with an embargo till a certain time to allow them to report on it for the next morning’s print editions?

is it court etiquette to let the claimants and ANL know in advance of publicly releasing the judgement? So perhaps the claimants already know the judgement? Obviously there is more of a potential need to do this if the judgement is not good news for them.

From what I've seen (in this case and others), judgement release times are usually 10 am and 2 pm.

The parties are often given the judgement in advance of release. We know that in this case, they were given the main judgement only a very short time (hours) before release, quite possibly due to the history of leaking from the claimants.

I don't know how far in advance they'll be given the costs judgement.

It was listed on Kings Bench wasn't it - if so its not currently on the list for tomorrow... the wait goes on.....

The irony would be delicious, them whining about press intrusion they don't like but are constantly doing press releases, interviews, selling stories to media often about friends. It would be perfect for them not to be kept in the loop because they can't be trusted. Would make my day.

It won’t go back into court @myrtleWilson I suspect. It’s a written judgement and will be on Bailii or judiciary.uk

C’mon Judge, don’t keep us waiting!

I know the suspense is killing me.

Hopefully tomorrow at 10am. Be warned: I’m usually wrong.

Now I DID say I am busy tomorrow but will try to check in !