Prince Harry, Elton John and other high-profile claimants face paying millions of pounds from their own pockets after a judge ruled that their failed privacy lawsuits against the publisher of the Daily Mail were conducted in an unreasonable manner.
Judge Matthew Nicklin, in a judgment on legal costs published on Friday, ordered the claimants to make an interim payment of £9.54 million towards the legal costs incurred by Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail.
The payment is due by August 28.
In a further setback for the claimants, Nicklin ordered that the additional costs should be assessed on an “indemnity basis”. This means Associated Newspapers will not be required to demonstrate that the costs were reasonable and proportionate in the same way as under the standard basis.
The full amount the claimants will ultimately be required to pay has not yet been determined. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, Associated Newspapers’ costs will be assessed in separate proceedings.
Last month, Nicklin comprehensively rejected the case brought by Prince Harry and five other figures, dismissing allegations that the Mail titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, including phone hacking.
In his latest judgment, the judge was highly critical of the way the claimants had presented their case.
Nicklin said serious allegations had been based on “speculative and inferential” foundations and had not been withdrawn even after they were no longer being pursued.
“In my judgment, the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree,” he said.
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers described the ruling as “another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism”.
A spokesperson for Prince Harry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Harry had previously described the dismissal of the lawsuit in July as a “complete and obvious whitewash”.
The latest ruling comes days after reports that Harry, who stepped down from official royal duties in 2020, plans to return to Britain with his wife, Meghan, and their two children after living in California.
The 41-year-old prince has long criticised sections of the British press and has linked the media’s treatment of his family to the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a 1997 Paris car crash.
During his evidence in January, Harry became emotional while describing the impact of media coverage on Meghan, saying the Daily Mail had made her life “an absolute misery”.
Harry had previously won a case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror and settled another claim involving Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper group. However, the latest ruling represents a significant defeat in his ongoing legal battles with the British media.
The court was told during a July hearing that Associated Newspapers had incurred legal costs of £34.5 million, equivalent to about $45.8 million.
Harry and the other claimants, meanwhile, had an insurance policy covering only £16 million of their potential legal costs.
Associated Newspapers’ lawyer, Antony White, argued that the claimants had made wide-ranging and serious allegations without sufficient supporting evidence, increasing the publisher’s legal expenses.
White also argued that a statement issued by Harry following the dismissal of the case amounted to an abuse of his position and celebrity status.
Nicholas Bacon, representing the claimants, described Associated Newspapers’ £34.5 million legal bill as “eye-watering” and said it significantly exceeded an agreed budget.
In his judgment dismissing Harry and the other claimants’ lawsuits following an 11-week trial, Nicklin said they were required to establish that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully.
The judge concluded that they had failed to meet that requirement, stressing that suspicion alone was insufficient to prove unlawful information gathering.
The claimants have not yet decided whether to appeal the judgment.
