Prince Harry and six other high-profile figures must pay an initial £9,544,355 within seven days to the Daily Mail’s publisher as a first costs contribution after losing their High Court privacy claims, according to a High Court judgment. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the group’s failed lawsuits against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) were speculative, and ordered that the publisher’s total costs exceeding £34 million be determined on a stricter indemnity basis.
High Court Costs Order Following Dismissed Privacy Claims
The costs ruling follows a July 7 judgment by Mr Justice Nicklin, who dismissed the lawsuits brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes. According to the court, the claimants sued ANL over allegations of unlawful information-gathering, which the publisher strongly denied throughout an 11-week trial in London earlier this year. Mr Justice Nicklin described the original claims as “speculative and substantially inferential” in his 44-page ruling.
Under the new order, the seven claimants must pay the initial £9,544,355 installment within seven days. Nicholas Bacon KC, representing the claimants, stated in written submissions reported by BreakingNews.ie that facing costs on the stricter indemnity basis could push the group past their combined insurance cover shortfall of £16.2 million. ANL’s total legal bill surpassed the publisher’s approved budget by more than £18.6 million, according to court records.
Indemnity Basis and Judicial Critique of Legal Conduct
Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that ANL’s costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis, which heavily favors the recovering party. The judge cited several reasons for this stricter standard, including the “exceptional breadth” of the litigation and public allegations of serious criminality that were never established. He added that the claimants maintained serious allegations against many individuals without reassessing them when evidence required it, behavior he deemed “unreasonable to a high degree.”
According to the Daily Mail’s legal team led by Antony White KC, the litigation was pursued in a “cavalier” and “highly unreasonable and inexcusable” fashion outside normal legal bounds. Associated Newspapers stated that the claims were part of an improper effort to pressure the government into ordering a new Leveson inquiry. An ANL spokesperson welcomed the decision as “an overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism,” calling the judgment a “devastating critique” of the litigation.
Deadlines for Potential Appeals
The High Court set an October 2 deadline for any applications seeking permission to appeal either the underlying judgment that dismissed the privacy claims or the July 12 costs ruling. The group of seven individuals faces potential multi-million-pound personal liabilities to cover the remainder of the publisher’s expenses if further hearings confirm the total sum.
Related reading