Prince Harry and six other claimants, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence, have been ordered by the High Court to pay an initial sum of £9,544,355 to the Daily Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, for their failed phone hacking lawsuit. The ruling, delivered by Mr. Justice Nicklin, found that the case was pursued in a manner that was ‘unreasonable to a high degree.’
A rare 'indemnity order' was granted, compelling the claimants to cover the majority of the legal costs. Such orders are typically reserved for cases involving significant misconduct. Mr. Justice Nicklin stated that the litigation against the Mail was ‘pursued in a way that took it well outside the norm’ and that the cumulative effect of the claims and their conduct was ‘unreasonable to a high degree.’
Associated Newspapers, the publisher, had spent £34.4 million over four years defending its journalists against allegations of hacking, bugging, and blagging. In a ruling on July 7, the court exonerated the Mail’s journalists, dismissing all allegations of unlawful activity.
The claimants, who include Sir Elton John's husband David Furnish, model Elizabeth Hurley, actress Sadie Frost, and former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Simon Hughes, had alleged criminal acts by journalists. Their insurance policy covers £16.2 million of costs, while their own legal expenses are estimated to be at least £20 million. The claimants' legal teams reportedly worked on a 'no-win, no-fee' basis for at least part of their representation.
During the proceedings, Associated Newspapers' lawyers argued that the claimants' case was pursued in a 'cavalier,' 'highly unreasonable and inexcusable' fashion, with serious criminal allegations made without adequate foundation. The publisher's legal team also contended that some actions were in 'flagrant breach' of the judge's warnings to the claimants' lawyers.
Mr. Justice Nicklin cited the 'continued pursuit of serious allegations that lacked an adequate evidential foundation' as a reason for the indemnity order. He also noted that the claimants proceeded despite the withdrawal of cooperation from private investigator Gavin Burrows, who later disavowed his prior statements as fabricated. The most serious accusations were reportedly based on claims involving Burrows, who received substantial payments from the claimants' lead researcher, Graham Johnson.
The judge declined to place a cap on the amount to be claimed by Associated Newspapers, whose total legal costs are estimated at £35 million. While a specialist costs judge will still review the specifics, the indemnity basis means a significantly larger proportion of these costs will be recovered from the claimants.
Following the initial ruling that dismissed their case, Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence publicly criticized the judge, calling his decision a 'complete and obvious whitewash' and accusing him of bias. Mr. Justice Nicklin, however, clarified that he had not found any of the claimants themselves to have acted dishonestly.
Sir Simon Hughes, one of the claimants, reportedly distanced himself from the group during a hearing on costs, stating he did not intend to 'target' Associated Newspapers. However, the publisher's barrister argued that Sir Simon had accused the company of 'heinous criminal acts' and had not withdrawn those allegations. The claimants' cases were described as being pursued 'for the most part without any supporting documentary evidence,' employing a 'scattergun approach' that was deemed improper and cavalier.
Associated Newspapers characterized the litigation as part of a 'coordinated media attack' and a political strategy to pressure the government into a second Leveson Inquiry into press standards. The publisher maintains that not a single one of the 97 allegations made against its titles was upheld in the judgment.