Prince Harry, six others face legal bill of up to £34.5m after failed privacy case

The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry and six other public figures could face legal costs of up to £34.5m after losing a privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

A High Court judge has ordered the seven claimants to make an initial payment of £9.54m to Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) by Friday next week, following their failed claims that the publisher unlawfully gathered private information.

The claimants include the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Sir Simon Hughes, racial justice campaigner Baroness Lawrence, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley.

The group had brought the case against ANL, which owns the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, alleging unlawful information-gathering. The publisher denied the allegations.

On 7 July, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed their claims.

The judge has now ruled that the case was unusual enough to justify the claimants paying costs beyond the amount previously agreed before the trial. He criticised the way the claims were presented, describing the approach as “unreasonable to a high degree”.

The seven claimants had insurance covering up to £16.2m of ANL’s legal costs if they lost the case. However, the latest ruling means the publisher could seek to recover as much as £34.5m in costs, potentially leaving the group facing an additional bill of around £18m.

Justice Nicklin said a claim for more than £34m was, on its face, excessive and raised concerns about whether all of ANL’s costs were reasonably incurred.

However, he decided not to place a limit on the amount ANL could recover, saying doing so could be unfair and arbitrary.

The judge also ordered that ANL’s costs be assessed on an indemnity basis, which generally allows a successful party to recover a greater proportion of its legal expenses.

He criticised the claimants for failing to withdraw serious allegations they no longer had sufficient evidence to support.

“Serious allegations of criminality or grave impropriety cannot properly be left hanging over individuals in that way,” he said.

The publisher described the decision as a “devastating critique” of the claimants’ case and accused them of attempting to damage the newspaper and the reputations of its journalists and executives.

Sir Simon Hughes said he was disappointed by the judgment and was considering whether to appeal both the original ruling and the costs decision.

Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence had previously described the outcome of the case as a “complete and obvious whitewash”, saying they had gone to court seeking justice and accountability but had received neither.

The Duke of Sussex had travelled from the United States to attend parts of the trial in person, while several other claimants also gave evidence.

The case centred on allegations of unlawful information-gathering by Associated Newspapers. Current and former journalists and executives from the publisher denied wrongdoing when giving evidence.

The claimants have until 2 October to seek permission to appeal the original judgment.

Under the usual rules for civil cases, the losing side is generally required to pay the successful party’s reasonable legal costs, as well as covering its own expenses.

The latest ruling therefore represents another significant setback for Prince Harry and the other claimants as they consider whether to continue their legal challenge.

(BBC News)