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

https://www.court-tribunal-hearings.service.gov.uk/kings-bench-division-daily-cause-list?artefactId=56024c2f-8493-4bd3-bcad-a6e135362892

2pm tomorrow

Thank you. It's all to play for! What bombshell will land tonight or tomorrow morning to keep us all distracted?

Well, let's see what happens. There are rumours it is already on tbe market. And I doubt H&M would admit to money issues, so maybe if a sale us agreed they will suddenly decide they want to commit to their uk life.

Or maybe I am completely wrong, and they will still own their montecito house in years to come

Thank you @AtIusvue

Thank you @AtIusvue it means I can rearrange my day 😂

Talk of Houses etc ----->>>>>> to the PR Thread

Thank you @AtIusvue

Thank you from me too, @Atlusvue

Tomorrow at 2pm

edited to add the link - sent out by e-mail
https://www.court-tribunal-hearings.service.gov.uk/kings-bench-division-daily-cause-list?artefactId=56024c2f-8493-4bd3-bcad-a6e135362892

sorry - just realised it was posted. MN not always updating for me today

@Baital I’m not sure you are wrong but spinning a story is such a Harry thing to do.

Tomorrow will be interesting.

They have made such an issue of the house - dream come true, trees connected just like H&M, Meghan's vegetables and the children collecting eggs - it would be quite embarrassing to downsize and stay in California.

Far more positive to move back to the UK so the children can learn about their birthright...

Can we PLEASE keep this thread on topic.

It is likely to be busy today with lots of posts - there is a lot of background stuff to talk about but there are other threads for that- there will be enough to talk about when the judgment is known.

Here’s a thread where you can post all your general non court case related HAM speculation. They get through a thread every couple of days so it’s very lively!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/5568768-pr-disasters-thread-29?reply=154277632?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

Apparently Harry has said he is covering Doreen Lawrence's costs - is it likely that he would cover any one else's costs?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/09/doreen-lawrence-legal-bill-failed-sue-daily-mail-prince-harry

This seems to be the end of the road. I hope there is no way to appeal

I’m at a wedding today so won’t be able to see the awards when it comes in but looking forward to reading about it later.

Now that Harry is back it will be much easier for ANL to collect any monies. I’m sure EJ will stay in France for the foreseeable future.

@nicepotoftea He may not plan to cover anyone else's costs, but due to the claimants being jointly and severally liable for the common costs he may end up paying a greater proportion than some others.

A reminder of what each claimant has to pay:

His/her own individual costs
A share of the claimants' common costs
Individual costs to ANL (severally liable)
A share of common costs to ANL (jointly and severally liable)

ANL have asked for costs on an indemnity basis, meaning that they would recover the full amount of their costs without them being capped to the pre-tiral budget. This is sometimes permitted in judgements where there is criticism of the claimants' behaviour during litigation.

Special thanks to posters helping to keep the thread on track in the last 24 hours

@RecoIIectionsMayVaryIt’s a no news week - except the diversion by Harry! It’s reasonable to discuss this in the light of the judgement today.

Being subject to paying indemnity costs (whoever actually pays the joint costs in the end) would be so galling for PH.
Not long now till we find out.

@bluegreygreen We have no idea of what their own costs are.

Interesting discussion with a barrister recently - hopefully not off topic and permitted. It was about David Sherborne and why he might not be a KC. Other than he’s not bothered, to be a KC you need 36 references and this includes from judges. There’s speculation that he’s not popular!

Very on topic. He will be even less popular now (thank goodness)

I used to work with a barrister like this. He was excellent at his job, stellar in fact, but the scmoozy buttering people up to get the KC title was not his thing. I actually really liked him as he was no nonsense, but he wouldn’t play the game.

David Sherborne is a schmoozer. I am not a fan - if that isn’t clear 😆

That's a lot of references!

It definitely skews towards people who get on with colleagues, and if you have to have references from judges bringing cases like this, or making speeches like the one DS made following the previous media case loss by Harry wouldn't help.

ETA Good point @PinkHairbrushClub - it would exclude people like that as well.

I'm not sure though that Sherborne is that good at his job. He reminds me of my Gran's saying, 'all mouth and no trousers'. He takes flashy cases, but this one has very little evidence of the claims made (and with Colleen Rooney she seems to have done all the work and the evidence to him on a plate). The very fact he encouraged the claimants to behave as they did on the stand indicates to me who rather than talent. I only know him from these two cases though so he may have been brilliant elsewhere.