A Costly Defeat
It was meant to be a landmark reckoning for one of Britain's most powerful newspaper publishers. Instead, Prince Harry and a group of six other prominent figures have been left counting the cost of a failed High Court case against Associated Newspapers Limited — paying out £9.5 million in legal fees, with potentially millions more still to come.
The group, which also includes Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes, accused ANL — publisher of the Daily Mail — of unlawful information gathering. The publisher strongly denied all claims. After an 11-week trial in London, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed every single case in a judgment handed down on 7 July.
The Judge's Damning Verdict
The ruling was scathing. Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the group to pay £9,544,355 within seven days as an initial contribution toward ANL's costs, which the court was told total more than £34 million. That initial payment is understood to have been made before the 28 August deadline.
"In my judgment, that conduct was unreasonable to a high degree," Mr Justice Nicklin said, later describing the claims as "litigation conceived and pleaded on an unjustifiably wide canvas."
The judge went further, ruling that ANL's costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis — a stricter and more publisher-favourable standard — citing several factors including "the speculative and substantially inferential character of the claims at their origin" and "the exceptional breadth" of the cases. He also criticised the group for "the making and maintenance of very serious allegations against many individuals" and their failure to reassess those allegations when the evidence demanded it.
Particularly pointed was his observation that it was "wholly unacceptable" for lawyers acting on behalf of the claimants to put allegations to witnesses that did not form part of their pleaded cases — placing those witnesses, the judge said, "in an unfair position."
The Financial Fallout
The £9.5 million payment is far from the end of the story. The court was previously told there is a combined shortfall of £16.2 million between ANL's total costs and the group's insurance cover. Nicholas Bacon KC, representing Harry and others, warned in written submissions that the indemnity costs ruling could be "very significant" and may leave the claimants without sufficient insurance cover, given that the publisher's costs exceed its court-approved budget by more than £18.6 million.
"The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought," an ANL spokesperson said. "That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession."
Though Mr Justice Nicklin described ANL's £34 million costs claim as "excessive" and "largely unexplained," he declined to impose a cap after what he called "careful consideration." Any applications for permission to appeal — either the original dismissal or the costs ruling — must be filed by 2 October.
What Comes Next
For Prince Harry in particular, the defeat will sting. The Duke of Sussex has made challenging the British press a defining cause of his post-royal public life, and this case was among the most high-profile fronts of that campaign. ANL wasted no time declaring the outcome a vindication, with a spokesperson calling it "another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism" and a "devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives."
Further hearings will be held to determine the total sum the group must pay — meaning the full financial reckoning is still some way off. What is already clear, however, is that this particular legal gamble has proven enormously costly, both in pounds and in reputational terms.
