Prince Harry and other celebrities could be forced to pay millions to cover failed Mail legal action

Jess GlassWed, July 29, 2026 at 1:15 PM UTC

0

Prince Harry and others could have to pay millions out of their own pockets to cover the costs of their failed action against the Daily Mail.

Seven household names, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Sir Elton John, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information-gathering.

ANL strongly denied the claims, heard at an 11-week trial earlier this year.

On July 7, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the claims in their entirety in a 436-page judgment and the cases returned to the High Court for a hearing on Wednesday over costs.

The court heard there was a shortfall between their insurance cover and ANL’s costs which are more than £34 million.

Any arguments about potential appeal bids have been deferred until after the money has been finalised.

Baroness Doreen Lawrence attended the trial earlier this year (Jordan Pettitt/PA)

At the hearing, lawyers for ANL said the group of household names should pay its costs on an indemnity rather than a standard basis, which would be more favourable to ANL in terms of the amount they can recover.

Antony White KC, for the publisher, said the legal claims were brought for a “collateral purpose” of trying to pressure the Government into introducing the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, describing it as “a campaign rather than ordinary and reasonable litigation”.

The barrister said that the cases “were launched in a blaze of publicity knowing that these were likely to attract significant attention on the world stage” with a press release in October 2022.

Discussing the release, he said: “This was a monstrous thing to publish.

“It is intended to be as damaging as it could possibly be, and it was.”

Discussing the high-profile figures, Mr White said: “They knew that this was an all-out attack on Associated.

“They were at pains to emphasise that there were others who could join the bandwagon.”

Mr White also said he was “sad” to say that Baroness Lawrence was “recruited as the national treasure”, adding: “That is a matter of regret for my client, but it is not to be shrunk from.”

The barrister later criticised the breadth of the allegations and how they “shifted”.

He said that the claimants, which also included David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, cast a “strikingly wide” net for their claim “in the hope of catching some fish”.

He said that the court should “step back and ask itself why the net was cast so wide”.

Advertisement

Mr White added that “the answer surely is that these proceedings were brought as a vanguard, or first wave” of cases ahead of a “banquet of litigation”.

Nicholas Bacon KC, for the group of claimants, said that Mr Justice Nicklin should not award ANL their costs on the stricter, indemnity basis.

The barrister said in written submissions that it could be “very significant” if the group of seven had to pay ANL’s cost on this stricter basis and could lead to them being without enough insurance cover.

Paul Dacre also gave evidence during the trial (Lucy North/PA)

He said that on the standard basis, a judge will need a good reason to award more costs than were set out in court-approved budgets, but this does not apply when costs are awarded on an indemnity basis.

Mr Bacon said that ANL’s incurred costs as of earlier this month were nearly £34.5 million, which “exceed its approved budget” by more than £18.6 million.

He continued: “The above figures reflect an astonishingly high legal spend by Associated and an entirely cavalier approach to the principle of proportionality and the overriding objective, which seeks to ensure that parties are on an equal footing.”

The barrister added that the group of seven household names have obtained insurance cover of a combined £16.2 million.

Mr Bacon said: “At that level of cover, the claimants would reasonably expect to be insured for the total of Associated’s incurred costs and approved estimated costs.

“If the claimants were required to pay Associated’s costs on the indemnity basis, however, the current level of cover would be insufficient to meet their total costs exposure, possibly to the tune of many millions of pounds.”

The barrister later said that the group had “conducted themselves honestly and in good faith”.

He continued: “In particular, the court largely accepted the claimants’ evidence, commended their straightforward answers and declined to find that any of them were in any way dishonest.”

Mr Bacon said that it was “always inevitable” that the cases would attract publicity and that it was “unrealistic to expect that the claimants themselves would remain wholly silent”.

He added: “The court did not find in its judgment that the claimants did not genuinely believe they had been the victims of unlawful information gathering or that the allegations they pursued in their claims, as reflected in the press release of October 2022, were made disingenuously.”

Mr Bacon said that the cases “were neither speculative nor weak” and had merit, with the breadth of the allegations “carefully monitored and crafted” by the judge through case management decisions.

He also said: “It must follow from the outcome of the court’s decisions on the evidence, which went against the claimants, that they should pay Associated’s costs of the claims.

“It would, however, be unjust to make an order that they do so on the indemnity basis.”

The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to conclude on Wednesday or Thursday with a decision due in writing at a later date.

Original Article on Source

Source: “AOL Entertainment”