Prince Harry may be required to personally cover substantial costs resulting from his unsuccessful legal battle against the Daily Mail publisher. The Duke of Sussex, alongside notable figures such as Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, had filed a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) alleging unlawful information gathering. ANL refuted the accusations, leading to a recent High Court ruling in London that dismissed all claims after an extensive 11-week trial.
During a subsequent court session on costs, it was revealed that there exists a shortfall between the insurance coverage and ANL’s expenses, which exceed £34 million. Lawyers representing ANL argued that the group of claimants, which also includes Sadie Frost, Elizabeth Hurley, David Furnish, and former MP Sir Simon Hughes, should be held liable for ANL’s costs on an indemnity basis, a more advantageous scenario for ANL in terms of cost recovery.
Antony White KC, representing the publisher, contended that the legal actions were initiated with the intent of pressuring the Government for a second phase of the Leveson Inquiry, characterizing it as a targeted campaign rather than standard litigation. He emphasized the high-profile nature of the cases, noting that they were strategically publicized and designed to attract global attention.
Addressing the extensive scope of the allegations, White criticized the broad nature of the claims, suggesting that they were overly expansive in an attempt to bolster the case. He highlighted that the claimants pursued the legal actions as a prelude to additional litigation, aiming to set a precedent for future legal battles.
In response, Nicholas Bacon KC, representing the claimants, argued against awarding ANL costs on an indemnity basis, expressing concerns that it could leave the claimants underinsured. He underscored the substantial legal expenses incurred by ANL and questioned the proportionality of their approach, urging for a fair and balanced resolution to the cost dispute.
Bacon reiterated the claimants’ integrity throughout the proceedings, emphasizing their genuine belief in being victims of unlawful information gathering. He defended the merit of the cases and the careful management of the allegations by the court, suggesting that while the outcome may not have favored the claimants, an indemnity-based cost award would be unjust.
The hearing before Mr. Justice Nicklin is anticipated to conclude shortly, with a final decision expected in the near future.