Prince Harry, along with six other prominent individuals, is facing the prospect of paying up to £34.5 million to Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, following a High Court judge’s exceptional order for legal costs stemming from their unsuccessful privacy lawsuit.
The group of claimants, which includes notable figures such as Sir Elton John and Liz Hurley, is required to make an initial payment of £9.54 million by the end of next week. The judge ruled that this case was exceptional, warranting costs that far exceed those initially agreed upon prior to the trial, criticizing the claimants for presenting their arguments in a manner deemed “unreasonable to a high degree.”
On July 7, Judge Mr. Justice Nicklin dismissed the allegations of unlawful information-gathering made by the claimants, which ANL has consistently denied. The Duke of Sussex and the other claimants have until October 2 to file an appeal against the ruling.
The other claimants include Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence. While the claimants had insurance coverage for up to £16.2 million of ANL’s costs in the event of an unfavorable outcome, the judge’s ruling now allows the newspaper group to potentially recover up to the £34.5 million it claims to have spent in its defense. This scenario could leave the Duke and the others facing a bill of approximately £18 million.
Justice Nicklin characterized the potential payment of £34.5 million as “excessive,” indicating that the total costs incurred by the group are unlikely to reach that figure. He expressed concern regarding the reasonableness of the costs being claimed by ANL, stating, “I regard a claim for costs in excess of £34 million as, on its face, excessive and as giving rise to real concerns as to whether all of the costs now claimed by Associated were reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount.”
Nevertheless, the judge opted not to impose a cap on ANL’s recoverable costs, reasoning that such a limitation could be overly simplistic and potentially unfair. He also ruled that ANL’s costs would be assessed on an indemnity basis, which favors the publisher in terms of recoverable amounts, except in instances where prior orders had been established.
The judge noted the significant fact that “not a single allegation of serious wrongdoing was voluntarily withdrawn” by the group of seven claimants, emphasizing the importance of addressing serious allegations of criminality or misconduct properly. He stated, “If a party no longer advances such an allegation, or no longer has a proper evidential basis for advancing it, the allegation should be withdrawn clearly and in terms.”
In a statement issued on Friday, ANL described the ruling as “a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors, and executives.” This decision arrives just days after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced their plans to return to the UK, with their children, Prince Archie, seven, and Princess Lilibet, five, set to begin school in September.
During the trial, numerous witnesses provided testimony, including Prince Harry, who traveled from the United States to attend the proceedings in person. Many current and former journalists and executives from Associated Newspapers testified, denying any involvement in illegal activities.
Sir Simon Hughes expressed his disappointment with the judgment in an interview with the BBC, stating, “I am now taking the time necessary to consider both the substantive and the costs judgment and whether to pursue appeals against decisions in either judgment or both.”
In a joint statement issued after the judge’s ruling last month, Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993, lamented, “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.” They further described the outcome as “a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected.”
ANL had requested an interim payment exceeding £9.9 million ahead of future hearings to thoroughly assess its legal costs, while the claimants’ legal team argued for a figure just above £7.9 million. Justice Nicklin had previously stated that the claimants would need to make the interim payment by August 28.
In civil cases of this nature, legal conventions dictate that the losing party is responsible for reimbursing “reasonable” legal fees incurred by the opposing side. However, the judge retains the authority to determine the appropriate amount to be paid, in addition to the requirement for the claimants to cover their own legal expenses.
Source: BBC
About The Author
