Prince Harry Faces Huge Legal Bill after Daily Mail Privacy Lawsuit Defeat

Prince Harry and other high-profile claimants could face a multi-million-pound legal bill after losing their privacy lawsuits against the publisher of the Daily Mail, the High Court in London heard on Wednesday.

 

Earlier this month, a High Court judge delivered a decisive ruling against King Charles’s younger son, singer Elton John and five other prominent British figures, dismissing allegations that Associated Newspapers had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, including phone hacking.

 

Associated Newspapers described the ruling as a major victory for its publications and journalists, as well as “for a free press generally”. Prince Harry, 41, however, criticised the judgment as a “complete and obvious whitewash”.

 

At a hearing on Wednesday to decide how much of Associated Newspapers’ legal costs the claimants should pay, the publisher’s lawyer Antony White argued that costs should be awarded on an “indemnity basis”. Under such an order, the losing party must cover the other side’s legal expenses without requiring the court to assess whether those costs were proportionate.

 

The court heard that Associated Newspapers had incurred legal costs of £34.5 million ($45.8 million), while the claimants’ insurance cover amounted to only £16 million.

In a strong criticism of the claimants’ case, White argued that the legal action had been designed to create “a banquet of litigation” against Associated Newspapers. He said the claimants had made serious and wide-ranging allegations without sufficient evidence, significantly increasing the publisher’s legal costs.

He also criticised Prince Harry’s statement following the judgment, describing it as an abuse of his position and public profile.

“It was entirely inappropriate and unreasonable,” White told the court.

Associated Newspapers has applied for an interim payment of £10 million towards its costs.

Nicholas Bacon, representing the claimants, argued that Associated’s £34.5 million legal bill was “eye-watering”, far exceeding the agreed litigation budget. He said there was a clear shortfall between the costs claimed by the publisher and the security available under the insurance arrangements.

Bacon said reports that Associated Newspapers wanted to “go for the jugular” and secure indemnity costs amounted to an attempt to punish the claimants.

The claimants have offered an interim payment of £8 million by August 28.

In his judgment dismissing the claims, Justice Matthew Nicklin said the claimants needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained through unlawful means. However, he ruled that they had failed to provide sufficient evidence, adding that suspicion alone was not enough.

The claimants’ lawyers said in written submissions that any application for permission to appeal against the judgment had been postponed until after Justice Nicklin delivers his ruling on costs.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.