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

Maybe bankruptcy laws are kinder in Britain!

Perfect timing for me: it's raining on holiday, we have our home tv box to watch the cricket, DD has started enjoying it after years of laughing at the rules and the costs judgement awaits....

They might have to take a hit that means making changes, but actual bankruptcy?

Apologies if this has been asked before but will the general public ever know who actually stumps up the cash in the end?

I believe the previous answer to this was that we may never know who paid which personal fees, but that ANL may be able to dig into who paid for theirs ... and wouldn't it be a shame if that got leaked

I don't know @ComePlayMyTrombolise.

The individual costs will have to be paid separately.
For the common costs, presumably it would depend if they are paid directly or amalgamated in a solicitors' account first.

If there is any difficulty about obtaining the common costs, and ANL have to pursue them, I'm sure we will hear.

I don't think ANL will feel any compulsion to keep information private.

If Elton has to bear the lion’s share , he might leak it himself!

It's a good question about enforcement- has Harry actually paid the money he owes for all his claims and appeals regarding security?

I'm moving a fox's head round (stuffed toy one, not real!) and refreshing constantly!

Indemnity costs awarded!

"The Court’s decision
5. The Court concluded that Associated’s costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis,
save where costs orders have already been made [105]–[150].6. The Court stressed that its decision was not based simply on the fact that the Claimants
had lost at trial. Nor did the Court make findings that any of the Claimants had acted
dishonestly [140], [149].
7. Rather, the Court concluded that the litigation had been pursued in a way that took it
“well outside the norm” [150]. In particular, the Court identified a combination of
factors including: the exceptional breadth of the pleaded case; the gravity of the
allegations advanced against many named individuals; the continued pursuit of serious
allegations that lacked an adequate evidential foundation; the failure to withdraw
allegations that could no longer properly be maintained; reliance upon the Burrows
material; the way in which the “Leveson Lies” allegations were advanced; and the
putting of unpleaded allegations to witnesses in cross-examination during the trial
[109].
8. The Court summarised its conclusion in these terms [107]:
“The claims, and the manner in which they were brought, pleaded, pursued,
maintained and publicly advanced, involved a combination of circumstances
and conduct which took the litigation outside the ordinary and reasonable
conduct of civil proceedings.”
Later in the judgment, the Court stated [150]:
“The cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm.
The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.”"

Well, they have managed to alter the news coverage: Sky hasn't reactivated their page (linked in the OP) where they covered the case but is covering it on the rolling news page of H&M's return: Sky News

See https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/various-claimants-v-associated-newspapers-limited-2/ for the judgement

£9.5 Million pound initial payment - live reporting on Sky now

https://news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-latest-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-moving-back-to-uk-13574885

£9.5 million to be paid by 4pm on the 28th Aug - 7 days

I don't speak legal, is someone getting their wrist slapped in that wording?

Thank you @Puzzledandpissedoff and @bluegreygreen .

I’m not the brightest when it comes to lawyer/judge speak so follow the ANL threads for the layman explanations.

The media summary says the judge has elected not to put a cap on costs. If they don’t agree between themselves it would be a specialist costs judge deciding.

Yes, very much so @MrsLeonFarrell.

ANL have been awarded costs on an indemnity basis, because the behaviour of the claimants during the case was 'outside the norm'.
From the summary:
'The cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm.
The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.'

ANL are receiving approximately the amount asked for as an interim payment (£9,544,355) to be paid within 7 days.

The claimants need to agree full payment of costs with ANL, otherwise it must go before a specialist costs judge.

Edit to correct errors.

Indemnity costs awarded!

Bloody hell

I suppose this was half expected and certainly hoped for, but at least it suggests that once again ANL haven't been unreasonable - and to this layperson it signals (as if we didn't already know) that they should never have brought the case without any evidence

Sorry if I have missed it, what will be the total costs?

So we still don't know the full amount they need to pay. Oh dear, expensive times ahead.

In paragraph 111 the judge says of the claim

“The object was, at least
in part, to maximise disclosure from Associated in the hope that disclosure would
provide evidential support for the individual claims advanced by each Claimant.
That pleading choice mattered because the Claimants were not pleading from a position
of established proof.”

it goes on to say that while his is not always unreasonable it also isn’t carte blanch to trawl through years of behaviour looking for reasons to punish them and that this instance was different to other precedent in just how wide ranging it was in it’s pleading.

@sittingonabeach if I've read correctly, ANL and the claimants need to try to come to an agreement, and if they don't a Cost judge will determine the amount

We don't know yet but there is no cap so could be the full 34m.

Also a lot of criticism of the claimants and their team, really very critical