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

Can't have been from this, though? Lawyers do lose cases and they still get paid.

Mark Thomson was/is Hugh Grant’s lawyer. I will be watching the insolvency closely for HMRC and employee costs. The taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for this grotesque charade.

@ThatCyanCat

There is a big difference between losing a legitimate case and this one.

But surely they still get their fees?

More twists and turns in this case, couldn’t make it up.

https://archive.ph/DAvSw

Thanks, @Thedom.

A law firm at the heart of the Duke of Sussex’s failed hacking claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail has gone bankrupt, The Telegraph can reveal.
Thomson Heath Jenkins has called in insolvency practitioners, and the office has closed. One source in the company admitted it had been “a shock for staff”.

The firm jointly instructed counsel for all seven celebrity claimants – the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes – in the high-profile privacy claim against Associated Newspapers Limited.

Mark Thomson, who founded the company in 2009 and owns 100 per cent of the shares, served as a coordinating solicitor for the whole group and personally represented Ms Frost and Sir Simon. In total, seven lawyers from the firm worked on the case.

The celebrities lost the High Court action in July and now face the prospect of a substantial legal bill.

Crikey.

I feel sorry for the employees. As for the boss - be careful who you get into bed with (bit late in the day for that little nugget ☹️)

Gosh surely it’s no coincidence that they’ve folded shortly after such a disastrous loss in court?

Really interesting re the timing of the insolvency. This surely has to be to do with the loss in the ANL case. Its going to have a huge impact shortly on the claimants.

The claimants have until 6th November for an application for appeal to be submitted.

From memory Judge Nicklin hasnt granted leave to appeal and nor is he likely to give consent given that the case was dismissed as entirely lacking in evidence.

The claimants would need to substantially evidence significant legal technical or procedural points

Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 52.21), a ruling can only be overturned if it was "wrong" (due to an error of law, fact, or exercise of discretion) or "unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity."

Given how watertight the Nicklin ruling was, I doubt that the claimants have even the slightest chance of an appeal being granted.

A CA judge reviewing the application bundle is highly likely to place great weight and emphasis on the trial judges detailed case assessment and will be extremely unlikely to want to deviate from Nicklins ruling.

Once the prospect of an appeal is entirely gone, the claimants then face the full weight of the case costs.

Thanks @AutumnCrowOfTheBailey and @Thedom.

Mark Thomson, if I recall correctly, had the meetings with SF where there were emails about agreed actions afterwards.

The media keep quoting the ‘£34m costs’ owed to ANL, but never mention the claimants’ own costs, which I suspect may be the issue for the company. I see that MT apparently owns 100% of the company shares.

I agree, @MauveLibrary, I don’t see any realistic prospect of them being permitted to appeal.
They may be able to reduce their costs bill by arguing their case in front of a costs judge, given Nicklin’s comments on ANL’s costs. I suspect that is their best hope.

They likely had a no win no fee/insurance arrangement. If the insurance isn’t paying out and the celebs had to pay his firm’s fees - that would be the last paycheck. No one else would instruct.

Thomson said he didn’t know about the claims?! That is a shocking admission he didn’t know what was going on in his own firm?!

If he knew he is doomed.
If he didn’t know he is doomed.

Mr Thomson told the court he had no idea his colleague had been lined up to represent claimants in the proposed legal action, despite its potential significance.

Mark Thomson, seen leaving the Royal Courts of Justice during the trial Credit: Tayfun Salci
Antony White KC, for Associated, suggested that his evidence was untrue. He said it was “inconceivable” that, given the solicitor’s lengthy experience in representing hacking victims against other newspaper groups, he could have been “wholly unaware” of a potential raft of legal claims against the publisher.
“You heard not a word about a new stream of legal claims against Associated?” he asked.
“Not a word,” Mr Thomson insisted, telling the judge he only found out about the planned litigation in 2022.

Also, I’ve said previously, Thomson’s Associate Isabella Ritchie was previously at Hacked Off and friends with Rosa Malley (Hacked Off).

So are we thinking the insurers aren’t paying up because they have been misled as to the veracity of the case? Which puts the solicitors on the hook for costs?

I think a costs judge is likely to take a dim view of the claimants. The case is so wholly without merit or evidential support. ANL may well be able to claim the entirety of their costs back.

I dont think the claimants have the liquidity to repay this amount of money though.

They certainly should get most, hence why Judge Nicklin awarded Costa on an indemnity basis and refused to put a cap on the amount when Sherborne argued for that.

He did, however, comment that ANL’s costs were out of keeping with what would be normal in media cases, and that ANL would have to justify those costs before the specialist costs judge, and the claimants would also be able to make their own case before the judge.

the claimants would also be able to make their own case before the judge

You’ve really got to wonder who’ll be left standing to do that, at this rate.

I thought the joint and severally liable thing worked for costs in both directions? In other words, although they are all responsible for their own costs, if any of them can't pay then the lawyers can go after the ones who can, to get the lot?

Or, put more simply, they could just go after EJ? Wouldn't that happen before they just went bust, if it's to do with this case?

As it turns out, stupid enough to go bankrupt!!

Joint and severally liable would apply to the Daily Mail’s costs. I am not even sure if Thomson Heath Jenkins acted for Elton John - it might have been Sheridans or Gunnercooke

Jointly and severally liable applied to ANL's costs: there was a specific decision at one of the pre-trial hearings regarding that.

The claimants' own costs are split into 2 categories: group and individual costs. Each claimant has to pay their own individual costs and a proportion of the group costs (similar to how their costs for ANL are split, but without the joint and several liability clause).

I can't remember if any of their own costs would have been covered by insurance.

The claimants will have a difficult time in front of the costs judge, I am of the opinion that although Nicklin commented that ANLs costs were out of keeping, it could be argued that the claimants conduct was so scurrilous and the case so aggressively litigated but entirely lacking in merit or evidence, that it placed ANL in a position of having to incur extraordinary costs to defend themselves successfully.

The Nicklin judgement finding that indemnity costs were appropriate will put ANL in a favourable position when it comes down to the costs hearings.

Thank you all, once again, for the thoughtful and measured updates on this subject. Would I be right, in my ignorance, to think all of this may put legal firms off representing similar claims unless there was a decent financial deposit?

I would think so, especially as one firm of solicitors is going bankrupt because of it. It should never have got to court. A lesson to vexatious litigants in the future.

Its extraordinary to think that this case reached court and millions of pounds spent defending it....at least one claimant is vexatious.

The lack of substantive evidence and the detailed examination by the court confirmed the case lacked substance and merit.

I am surprised the case was allowed to proceed given the damning Nicklin judgement both in terms of claimant conduct and the fanciful nature of the claims.

I really would have thought that the insurers who had a representative present in court, would have had alarm bells ringing when it became apparent that the claimants had absolutely nothing to support their allegations.

I am even more astounded they didnt revoke ATE cover based on the perjury of at least one of the claimants.