A judge has ruled that the Duke of Sussex and six other well-known claimants must pay £9.54 million by 4pm on 28 August as an interim payment towards the Daily Mail publisher’s legal costs. This follows their loss in a high court case over allegations of unlawful information gathering. Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) strongly denied the claims made by Prince Harry and the other claimants, including Doreen Lawrence and Elton John.
Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the claims last month after an 11-week trial in London earlier this year. The court was told that ANL’s total costs were over £34 million. Lawyers for the claimants, who also include David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley, and Sir Simon Hughes, had argued that the interim payment should be just over £7.9 million.
The judge also decided that ANL’s costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis, which is more favorable to the publisher in terms of how much it can recover, except where orders had already been made. This means that, as the losing party, the prince and the others must pay towards ANL’s costs without the publisher needing to prove that these costs were reasonable and proportionate. An indemnity basis is less common than a standard basis and requires conduct or circumstances that are “outside of the norm.”
At a hearing in July, the court was told that Associated had incurred legal bills of £34.5 million.
Nicklin said it was “not simply a case in which serious allegations were made and failed,” nor “merely a hard-fought piece of litigation in which, after a lengthy trial, the court preferred the evidence and submissions of one side over the other.” He added: “The claims, and the manner in which they were brought, pleaded, pursued, maintained, and publicly advanced, involved a combination of circumstances and conduct which took the litigation outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of civil proceedings.”
In his 44-page ruling, he granted costs on this stricter basis for several reasons, including “the speculative and substantially inferential character of the claims at their origin,” the “exceptional breadth” of the cases, “and the public presentation of allegations of serious criminality and impropriety which were not ultimately established.” He also criticized the group for “the making and maintenance of very serious allegations against many individuals, the failure to reassess those allegations when the evidence required reassessment, and the continued pursuit of allegations which were unsupported or had ceased to be realistically maintainable.” He concluded: “In my judgment, that conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.”
The judge refused to cap the costs.
In a statement, ANL said the ruling “is a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors, and executives.” It added that despite the “collapse in evidence to support the extremely serious allegations of ‘abhorrent criminal activity, crimes and terrible and reprehensible covert acts’ by the Mail,” the allegations were “not withdrawn, and were pursued until the bitter end of the trial.” The statement continued: “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.”
Hughes said he was “disappointed and surprised” that the judge had declined to limit the costs.
The ruling does not mean ANL is entitled to recover all the costs it has incurred. Any costs incurred unreasonably will be disallowed. If the parties cannot agree, a costs judge will assess the costs. The parties have until 2 October to seek permission to appeal against the trial judgment or the costs ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here is a list of FAQs regarding Prince Harry and the 95 million interim payment to the Daily Mail publisher written in a natural and accessible tone
General Background Questions
1 What is this 95 million payment for
Its an interim payment towards legal costs Prince Harry and other claimants were ordered to pay this sum to Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail to cover legal fees incurred so far in the case Its not a fine or a settlement
2 Why do they have to pay the other sides costs
In UK civil courts the general rule is that the loser pays the winners legal bills The judge ruled that the celebrities core claimthat ANL hired private investigators to illegally bug phones and carswas strikingly weak and had a reduced prospect of success Because they brought a weak case the judge ordered them to pay ANLs costs for defending against that specific part of the claim
3 Is this the end of the case
No This is just the preliminary round The case is still ongoing but it has been significantly narrowed The judge threw out parts of the claim but a smaller portionrelating to specific allegations of unlawful information gatheringwill proceed to trial
4 What exactly did the judge say about the case
The judge Mr Justice Nicklin was highly critical of the claimants evidence He said their case was based on bare inference and speculation and that it was not suitable for a trial in its current form He specifically stated the claim of phone hacking had a reduced prospect of success
The Money The Ruling
5 How much is the total legal bill going to be
The 95 million is just an interim payment The final legal bill for both sides could be significantly higher potentially running into tens of millions of pounds depending on how the remaining trial goes
6 Who is paying for Prince Harrys legal fees
This hasnt been publicly disclosed In the past he has used funds from a trust set up by his mother Princess Diana He also has
