A failed privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the British tabloid The Daily Mail has left Prince Harry, Elton John and five other well-known claimants under orders to pay for the newspaper’s $13 million in legal fees.
The case centered on claims that Associated Newspapers Limited improperly obtained private information over nearly two decades, from 1997 to 2015.
A High Court judge rejected the case last month. On Friday, Judge Matthew Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay £9.5 million — the equivalent of almost $13 million — by Aug. 28 while the full cost dispute continues.
Who brought the case
The other claimants included John’s husband, David Furnish; actors Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley; former Liberal Democrat lawmaker Simon Hughes; and Doreen Lawrence, an anti-racism campaigner whose son Stephen was killed in 1993.
They sued Associated Newspapers, the publisher of The Daily Mail, over allegations that its employees used unlawful tactics to obtain private information.
Associated Newspapers called Friday’s ruling “another overwhelming victory” for the Mail and its journalism.
Why the bill could grow
The claimants could end up owing the publisher even more.
Associated Newspapers has put its costs at £34.5 million, or about $47 million — an estimate the court called “exceptionally high.” However, Nicklin did not set a maximum, leaving the amount to be determined in a later review of actual costs.
The final total will be assessed later, potentially by a specialist judge.
The judge ordered the remaining costs to be assessed on an “indemnity basis,” a standard that is less favorable to the losing side.
Under Friday’s order, the claimants will have to challenge expenses they believe should not be recoverable, rather than Associated Newspapers first having to show that its claimed costs are reasonable.
The court said that does not give the publisher a “blank check” and that unreasonable costs still cannot be recovered.
Judge criticizes the case
Nicklin was sharply critical of how the claimants brought the case.
Nicklin said some of the most serious accusations relied on what he called “speculative and inferential” foundations. He concluded that the claimants’ handling of the litigation was far outside what the court would normally expect.
“In my judgment, the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm,” Nicklin said. “The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.”
Harry’s wider media fight
The lawsuit was part of Harry’s yearslong legal campaign against British tabloids, a battle that has produced mixed results.
In a separate case against Mirror Group Newspapers, Harry was awarded £140,600, the equivalent of $191,000, after a judge concluded that the prince had been subjected to phone hacking and other unlawful efforts to obtain information about him.
Harry also reached a resolution with News Group Newspapers, which gave him a “full and unequivocal apology” covering phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information.
The Associated Newspapers case was the last unresolved lawsuit in Harry’s broader legal fight with British tabloid publishers. He has described the court loss as a “complete and obvious whitewash.” A spokesperson for him did not immediately respond to a request for comment after Friday’s costs ruling.
The ruling arrives as Harry and his wife, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, prepare to base their family in Britain again. Their planned return from the U.S. would not restore them to roles as working members of the royal family.
Round out your reading
- Former Fetterman staffers create social media account to expose former boss.
- Why Gen Z finally wants Boomer hand-me-downs.
- Want a copy of Pete Hegseth’s driver’s license? It’s for sale on the dark web.
- Smart glasses helped a man see the world. The privacy panic took it away.
- Americans are keeping cars longer, so the auto industry is making it easier to pay for repairs.
