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

Sherborn maybe but not the rest of the legal team what do you imagine their own 18m filed pretrial estimated costs were for?

Where in the Telegraph article does it say Harry is behind this? This is solely about Graham Johnson. There is no implication at all that Harry is involved.

It’s funny how Hazza, when ‘tamed’ by the MiGS was very much a ‘Shaggy from Scooby-Doo’ type character (bar those slip ups like nazi gate etc…), Megain portrayed herself as charity goddess, Hollywood star …. Left to their own devices it’s like Eric Cartman married Verucca Salt!

@AutumnCrowOfTheBailey has quoted the parts of the story that refer to Harry.

As @Puzzledandpissedoff has said, we can hope it’s not true, while also acknowledging that it would be in keeping with his previous behaviour.

@binkieFor ANL to pay if they lost? A pro bono costs order.

Christ what an utterly rubbish legal team they had. So short of work they worked 6 years for free and lost, should maybe consider different careers 😂😂 serves them right. How stupid can a group of professionals be!

. ignore post - wrong thread 🤦‍♀️

@binkie163 Well they had clients who wanted their day in court and for some of this period thought they had secure witnesses to illegal activities. They would have been paid if they had won. Plus they were doing other lucrative work in the meantime. They can afford it.

They knew 3 or 4 years ago burrows said formally through his solicitors that the 'statement' they believed they had was a forgery. Then it transpires the solicitor handling that 'statement' didn't prepare it, witness it or follow procedure. Everything hinged on that forgery so not very bright to continue on just thoughts and feelings! Elton's solicitor didn't know that birth certificate/registration is in the public domain!!

@binkie163 It’s the client who decides to go ahead or not. Read the threads about this. It’s clear from the outbursts afterwards what 2 of them thought. They believed they had a case. Everything in their mind didn’t just hinge on Burrows.

They believed their info had been gathered illegally but could not prove it and they were wrong. It didn’t make them not want their day (or 42) in court. It’s not rational but people this far into dislike of the press, and now the Justice system, are not rational. They live in their own echo chamber. What we might do when faced with setbacks is not what they do.

I am not talking about how daft the claimants are but the legal team working for free knowing the case collapsed around their ears.
They continued to flog a dead horse for nothing, just dumb.
The clients could insist on going ahead but a professional would say, not on my dime mate. Slim chance of winning so you pay me by the hour, you can have your day in court but not at my expense or at the expense of my reputation. They were as dim as the clients thinking they could win.
Having read this thread since the beginning I like everyone else was waiting for evidence which never appeared.
I am an engineer, if a customer asked me to design and project manage a build, don't yet own the site and wanted to pay me on completion, I would lmao. As a professional I work on retainer and structured payments. Some projects don't come to fruition but I am still paid for my time.

@binkie163 Well maybe they could have dumped the clients. Similar might happen to the rugby claimants I think but it’s unusual to do this. Not a good look. It’s also not black and white about all 93 claims failing. They did but it was never a guaranteed 100% failure.

It’s slightly odd they did pro bono too. The claimants could mostly pay and this was not a groundbreaking or ultra important legal case where the claimants were poor. So in that respect I find it strange. Paying your way usually brings people to their senses.

Sorry derail warning:
As a life long rugby fan I'm not sure how I feel about the case. It has been known since the 70's certainly the 80's that serious injury/concussion is part of the game.
Football stopped using leather footballs mid 80's due to head injuries.
I feel desperately sad for Lewis Moody, mnd has a raised risk in rugby players but is has long been known.
The enormous players of the 90's like Chevalier, Johnson, Vickery, Lomu jeez imagine him steamrolling over you. Anyone who believes/believed rugby is injury and risk free is a fool.
I do believe top level injury insurance is the clubs responsibility not just basic catastrophic injury. However there isn't the money in rugby that there is in football for that type of insurance. Good luck Pollock getting your 1m at saints.
The difference in the rugby case will be indisputable evidence of injury, brain damage, etc it won't be a bunch of lads saying their feelings were hurt! Or they feel less attractive due to cauliflower ears.
If the RFU get hammered financially then it will be the end of world rugby, 6 nations, rugby union closely followed by League. All our good players will join french teams.

@binkie163I agree with you - I know it’s different but there are issues with the players lawyers I’ve read. Medical evidence is one thing but who decided the players should play? They could walk away but they accepted the risks, as jockeys do and they get killed occasionally. You cannot eradicate risk entirely. If it appears the claimants will fail, they can walk away. Cut their losses. Not sure if they are getting pro bono work or not but deadlines for evidence are being missed. I agree heat isn’t the same as hurt feelings but fault is hard to prove when you make informed free choice.

Regarding my case.

I was found guilty and am appealing. Some of you may have seen the awful Daily Mail article which was not written by my Journalist following the case - but by a very determined freelancer who I discovered, has been following my case since 2024!!! The story has been pulled.

My DM journalist has been with me throughout. He has visited my home and met my husband. He knows the real story and wants to tell it - when the time is right for me. He had not even seen the freelancer’s story until I sent it to him.

I do think the freelancer will try to sell his story to other newspapers and I would be grateful if you see one to please pm me.

If anyone has any other questions, I am happy to answer if you pm me.

To be clear about DM Online from my guy

DM Online is constantly updating and what goes online is much more tabloid. Hence how they dealt with your case. It is not the actual paper which in theory is a bit more highbrow and rigorous in its reporting.

I'm sorry to hear your news @GwendolineFairfax8

I did see a sub-headline in the Mail Online yesterday referring to a court case involving Hugh Grant's PA and wondered whether that was connected to your story.

However when I clicked on the article I found it had been deleted – possibly because you plan further legal action?

I wish you good luck with your appeal.

Sorry to hear that, it has been very stressful for you and now appeal so no closure yet. Keep us updated xx

I'm sorry it's still ongoing for you, @GwendolineFairfax8, especially after the first delay with the case being suspended after the judge was unwell.

I saw the article you mention, which had some unpleasant details, but was also written primarily from the prosecution standpoint. I didn't see any details of the defence argument.

I had a look online, and while it had been on a couple of news/newsblog sites, those links have been deactivated.

Best wishes for the appeal.

I am so sorry to hear that @GwendolineFairfax8 .

Also best wishes for the appeal. Do you think you will have long to wait?

After all, without the initial delay through no fault of your own, you wouldn't have had this hanging over you for so long.

I'll be thinking of you.

Take some time for yourself, enjoy this beautiful autumnal sun and come back fighting.

Another one wishing you well and sending good wishes GwendolineFairfax8 , I hope you don’t have too long to wait for the appeal .

I think yesterday was the ANL appeal deadline. Anyone hear anything ?

I haven't seen any updates anywhere.

2nd October was the date by which the claimants had to lodge an application for permission to appeal in writing with Judge Nicklin. I think I'm correct in saying that if he refuses leave to appeal, they can then appeal directly to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.
The deadline for filing with the Court of Appeal is 6th November.

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.

For all Harry and Doreen Lawrence's strop, from what I have read (I am not a lawyer) Judge Nicklin was very thorough in his judgement. It doesn't look like they have much grounds for appeal, given 'I don't like the result' is grounds for appeal.