A British High Court judge on Friday ordered Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants to pay an initial £9.54 million in legal costs to Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). The order follows the group's loss in a privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail. The judge ruled that the claimants had failed to prove allegations of unlawful information-gathering, which the publisher had denied throughout the proceedings.
The legal action was brought by the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Sir Simon Hughes, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence. On 7 July, Mr. Justice Nicklin dismissed the claims, leading to the current dispute over legal fees. The judge noted that the high costs were tied to the way the case was brought, including allegations that newspaper executives had lied to the Leveson public inquiry, which the court found were not supported.
While the seven claimants had insurance to cover up to £16.2 million of ANL's costs, the publisher has claimed total defense expenses of approximately £34.5 million. Mr. Justice Nicklin described the £34.5 million figure as "on its face, excessive" but declined to set a formal ceiling on recoverable costs to avoid being "arbitrary." The publisher characterized the ruling as a defense of its journalists' reputations, while Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence described the earlier verdict as a "whitewash."
The ruling establishes a significant financial precedent for privacy litigation in the United Kingdom. By granting costs on an "indemnity basis," the court has allowed the publisher to recover a higher proportion of its spending than is standard. A person involved in similar high-stakes litigation would notice that failing to withdraw serious allegations when evidence is lacking—what the judge called "unreasonable to a high degree"—can lead to these exceptional financial penalties. The scale of the costs, which the judge noted as unusual, highlights the financial risks associated with suing major media corporations over historical information-gathering practices.
The decision also impacts the legal strategies and resources of the claimants moving forward. Sir Simon Hughes stated he is considering whether to pursue an appeal, a move the group has until 2 October to initiate. If the costs are upheld at the higher end of the estimate, it could influence the willingness of other public figures to bring similar claims against media outlets. For now, the focus shifts to the 28 August deadline for the first multi-million pound payment and the subsequent detailed assessment of the remaining £25 million in claimed expenses.
The initial payment of £9.54 million is due on 28 August. The claimants have until 2 October to attempt to launch an appeal against the court's decisions. The specific final amount to be paid by the group will be determined at future hearings.