Fresh blow for Prince Harry as heavy Daily Mail legal costs confirmed

Prince Harry and six other household names will have to pay an initial £9.5 million to the Daily Mail’s publisher after they lost their High Court case last month, it has been confirmed.

The Duke of Sussex was joined by the likes of Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and Elizabeth Hurley to sue Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information-gathering. ANL strongly denied the claims, which were heard at an 11-week trial in London earlier this year, and Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed every claim made by the defendants on July 7.

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you've consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our Privacy Policy

The cases returned to the High Court for a two-day hearing on costs, during which the court was told ANL’s total costs exceeded £34 million.

The claimants' allegations included voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information through deception - claims ANL strongly denied throughout the proceedings.

The publisher originally sought an interim payment of almost £10 million from the claimants, while their lawyers offered £8 million and confirmed they had insurance covering up to £16 million.

Lawyers for the group of household names, also including David Furnish, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes, said the interim payment should be just over £7.9 million. It has now been confirmed to be £9.5 million.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously said the claimants would need to pay the interim payment on August 28, adding: “They are going to be paying a sum of money that I will confirm in the judgment.”

In a statement following the confirmation of the costs, a spokesperson for ANL said the case "placed a huge burden on the Mail to defend the reputations of its innocent journalists and the paper itself" and added: "The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought."

"Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the way legal teams for Prince Harry and the other claimants ran the case was 'unreasonable to a high degree', and that 'allegations of the utmost seriousness were advanced before the evidential foundation for many of them had been established'.

"His judgment is a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.

"From well before the trial started, the claimants’ lawyers knew that their main witness had denied making the preposterous allegations on which the claims were based.

"Despite this collapse in evidence to support the extremely serious allegations of “abhorrent criminal activity, crimes and terrible and reprehensible covert acts” by the Mail, they were emblazoned in a lurid press release issued on behalf of Baroness Lawrence, Prince Harry and the other claimants, with the exception of Sir Simon Hughes. The allegations were not withdrawn, and were pursued until the bitter end of the trial.

"This placed a huge burden on the Mail to defend the reputations of its innocent journalists and the paper itself. The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought. That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession."

After their case collapsed last month, Prince Harry joined forces with Baroness Doreen Lawrence to issue a blistering statement. Branding the decision a “complete and obvious whitewash”, they insisted: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”

They continued: “The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the courtroom itself.

“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.

“When the court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, despite the documents showing otherwise, then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved.

“One need not look past when a private investigator the Mail used actually admitted on tape to having unlawfully blagged Baroness Lawrence, or when a journalist recorded the name of the private investigators she used to find out about highly sensitive medical information, that even the Mail was too worried to publish, or when another private investigator emailed one of the journalists with the actual British Airways seat number and ticketing details for a young girl simply visiting her boyfriend, in return for payment."

The confirmation of Prince Harry's legal costs comes after the surprising update that he and Meghan Markle will shortly be returning to the UK for an extended period.

The couple are understood to already have secured a home in an undisclosed location and will enrol their two children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, in UK schools.

It was understood that King Charles was only informed of the couple's move, which is set for later this month, last Sunday. However, The Mirror reported that the Sussexes informed the UK security services several weeks before Harry's father.

It remains unclear who will fund Harry and Meghan's security. The sudden move comes as Harry continues to wait for the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, known as RAVEC, to make a decision about his family’s security arrangements.