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

Thank you @Picpac876 for posting the link so quickly.

Summary of judgement

Full judgement (44 pages)

Just read the press summary here - it's only 3 pages and I'll get to the full thing later: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Various-Claimants-v-Associated-Newspapers-Limited-Press-Summary.pdf

So in effect it really is a hiding ... oh dear, how sad, never mind (and you beat me to it, @bluegreygreen )

Harry given just a week to pay £9.5m to publisher of Daily Mail

https://www.thetimes.com/article/e439d178-c788-4e2d-8dd3-6c5ba38674d5?shareToken=0deb79c9bc7932d4220550208ef5a26e

Para 122 covers the impact of the claimants pursuing claims doggedly and not voluntarily withdrawing ones that could not be evidenced. It deals with the impact on the journalists involved having accusations hanging over them and is very critical of the claimants and the failure to set aside those allegations and/or explaining in good time they wouldn’t be proceeding to cross examine on them:

”The Claimants’ failure to do so was not ordinary forensic judgment. It was not a proper or disciplined way to deal with serious allegations. It was unreasonable to a high degree.”

Well that ruling was clear!!

The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree

PH and co didn't just lose spectularly, their side's conduct has been thoroughly denounced.
And no cap imposed so it will be very interesting to see what their opening offer is!!

So presumably the next act in this drama will be the insurance company trying to get out of paying!

The judge made the ruling because of the “exceptional breadth” and “gravity” of the allegations made by the celebrities which “lacked an adequate evidential foundation” and for their failure to withdraw allegations that could no longer properly be maintained.

they were a bunch of greedy idiots and the judge could see it

I am so pleased that on this occasion, justice has prevailed 👏

So pleased with this judgement!

I need to go out for a short time - will be back soon to catch up.

Well it’s giving me reading material on my journey up the A1 as DH listens to a car podcast 🙈

As a country we are very lucky that ANL stood up for itself - the curtailment of press freedom had they settled would have been concerning.

After all the stunts and fuckerry that Prince Harry has pulled over the last 7 years all I can say is happy bloody days.

If they had 10 mil sat in the bank waiting the two of them wouldn't be paddling back over the pond with their tails between their legs. I hate my eyes for looking at them.

Thank you @bluegreygreen and other knowledgeable posters who have driven this thread to be informative and rational throughout.

And it's not done yet!

Anyone else keep refreshing the DM? 😂

He's not personally liable for all that amount is he?

Even if not, it's just the initial cost! Wow! He's going to be down many millions. Has he paid the Judicial Review costs yet? I hope so as it was effectively public money used to defend against his daft case.

Ouch...thats a lot of money to find in 7 days. Is it likely that the after the event insurance will pick this up or will the claimants need to pay this and then seek reimbursement from the insurer.

The ruling that costs have been awarded on an indemnity basis is going to be disastrous for the claimants as ANL now have the ok to seek full reimbursement of their costs and the ATE insurance will have just over £18 million of shortfall and that will be on top of whatever the claimants legal costs are.

The ruling makes absolute sense in that award of indemnity costs is reasonable in these circumstances.

The claimants have until October to request permission to appeal although I would imagine any such application would be dismissed as there is no obvious technical point of law to dispute, they cannot apppeal purely on the basis that they dont like that they have lost.

For all those gloating
Includes Stephen Lawrences mother
I know who I believe

I wonder if H will issue a statement?

Judgement specifically states that they set aside the statement made by Harry and DL after the conclusion of the case as it wouldn’t be right to rely on it. Associated clearly used it in their costs application though.

Its an initial amount
For all claimants. Not just Harry

Will you be waving happily at the Angel of the North?

Read the detail before gloating

Apparently the others promised her she’d never have to pay anything if it came to this/that they would cover her share. Hope they stick to this.

Will the insurance even pay out given the shenanigans of the claimants?

More fool her for getting into bed with these people expecting a large payday.

The judge threw every little bit of the case out and then wiped his hands on the paper after. There was no basis.

This was people with an axe to grind trying to take down a newspaper that reports on them. Never mind the inconvenient truth that their own friends and associates tell the paper the stories. Celebs often tell the press themselves to try and encourage positive headlines.

You cant have it both ways.