Daily Mail demands £10m over Prince Harry privacy defeat
Daily Mail demands £10m over Prince Harry privacy defeat
Victoria WardWed, July 29, 2026 at 10:56 AM UTC
0
The Duke of Sussex was one of seven claimants who had pursued Associated Newspapers for a breach of privacy claim - Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
The Daily Mail’s publisher has demanded an initial £10m payment from the Duke of Sussex and fellow claimants after a High Court judge wholly dismissed their “speculative” £50m privacy claim.
Associated Newspapers Limited criticised the “outrageous” and “unreasonable”conduct of the seven high-profile claimants who had pursued allegations of phone hacking, bugging and blagging against its journalists “to the bitter end” despite a lack of evidence.
The Duke, Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence were among those who sued Associated Newspapers Limited for breach of privacy.
However, in an excoriating High Court ruling handed down earlier this month, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all 97 claims against the publisher, stating there was no evidence.
The Duke later issued a statement attacking the judge and calling the 426-page ruling a “complete and obvious whitewash”.
The statement suggested that Prince Harry “knew better than the judge”, the publisher claimed.
Associated Newspapers is now seeking to recoup costs incurred during four years of litigation.
Lady Lawrence and Prince Harry issued a statement calling the judge’s ruling a ‘complete and obvious whitewash’ - Belinda Jiao/Getty Images
The publisher has asked for an initial payment of £9,950,624.37.
The claimants offered almost £8m, which it described as “a generous offer”. However, the publisher has applied for an indemnity order, which would lift a cap on the costs that could be recovered.
Each of the claimants had secured an individual after-the-event (ATE) insurance policy worth £2.35m that would collectively cover Associated’s costs to the tune of £14.1m.
But some are said to fear that the insurance company could resist a payout if the judge makes a punitive award based on his criticisms of their behaviour.
At the start of a two-day costs hearing on Wednesday, the publisher told Mr Justice Nicklin that it reserved the right to seek further sums if the court ruled that it was entitled to indemnity costs.
It argued that such an order would reflect in part the “unpleasant and distressing” experience the company and 77 of its journalists, lawyers and executives had endured, many of whom had been forced to go to court to defend their reputations.
The publisher said both parties had agreed that the claimants should cover its costs. However, how those costs are assessed – whether on a standard or indemnity basis – the interest and the timeframe for covering the costs remain in dispute.
The publisher applied for an indemnity order because of the ‘unpleasant and distressing’ case led by Prince Harry (second from left) - Elizabeth Cook/PA
The celebrities announced the claims in a “blaze of publicity” in October 2022, with a statement alleging “abhorrent criminal activity” and “terrible and reprehensible covert acts” – language that “could not have been stronger or more emotive” – and was clearly intended to recruit claimants, Associated said.
In written submissions, Antony White KC, representing the publisher, said that at trial the claimants had pursued “headline-grabbing” allegations in a “chaotic and ill-disciplined” manner, which caused confusion for witnesses.
Mr White added that by deliberately withholding documents and failing to comply with the judge’s orders, the claimants had “dramatically” increased the publisher’s costs.
The barrister said the group had “wholly disregarded” the “responsible and proper approach” to such serious allegations, despite repeated warnings from the judge, adding that payments had been made to potential witnesses for their testimony or even to change their evidence.
Advertisement
Associated also argued that the claimants had persisted in pursuing allegations based on the “obviously discredited” evidence of Gavin Burrows, a private investigator – long after he himself insisted they were false – and refused to withdraw them, even when it became clear they would fail.
The celebrity claimants pursued allegations based on evidence from Gavin Burrows, even after he insisted they were false - BBC
Rather than abandon the claim, they attempted to advance “a raft of different and shifting allegations”, Mr White told the judge.
“The extent of this shifting case was highly unreasonable and inexcusable,” he added in documents lodged with the court. “It led to significant costs and time being wasted by Associated in preparing to meet allegations, only to find them being subsequently abandoned or changed at trial.
“It also underscored the weak and speculative nature of the claims.”
Mr White noted that 77 journalists, editors and executives were accused of “serious wrongdoing” even though only 23 were involved in the claims.
The decision to cast such a “strikingly wide net” was described as a “strategic” ploy designed to “catch more fish” by encouraging more potential claimants to come forward.
Allegations of voicemail interception – put to journalists in “casual fashion” – were considered “particularly egregious”, while a scheme cooked up to “obscure the true origin of the claims” and deter any argument that they were brought too late, was highlighted as an example of dishonest behaviour.
“On any view, this is highly unreasonable and improper conduct and rightly merits sanction by the court,” Mr White said.
The “highly unusual” circumstances in which the claim originated, involving a push by press reform campaigners to prove that senior Mail executives had lied to the Leveson inquiry, had nothing to do with the individual claims, the court heard.
“These failings were symptomatic of the inappropriate and cavalier approach of the claimants throughout the proceedings to the ‘Leveson Lies’ allegations,” Associated said, adding that they had been included only as part of a strategy to pressure the Government to implement the second phase of the Leveson inquiry.
To add insult to injury, even after they comprehensively lost the case, the Duke and Lady Lawrence released a statement in which they questioned the judge’s integrity and described the ruling as “a complete and obvious whitewash”.
“That conduct sought – and achieved – global publicity for a continued allegation that Associated was in fact guilty of the wrongdoing alleged,” Mr White said.
The claimants argued that costs should be awarded on a standard basis.
Nicholas Bacon KC, acting for the group, said Prince Harry had “brought this claim in good faith” and that his evidence was accepted by the court.
He said the post-ruling statement released by the Duke and Lady Lawrence was not part of the case and so should not be taken into account.
“The costs to be ordered at this hearing concern the action itself, not the reaction to it,” Mr Bacon told the judge.
The claimants would not make a decision about whether to appeal until a ruling had been handed down on the costs and consequentials hearing, Mr Bacon said.
The hearing continues.
Source: “AOL Entertainment”
