Prince Harry and a group of high-profile claimants, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, are facing a potential legal bill running into millions of pounds after losing their High Court privacy case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail. The claimants sued ANL over allegations of unlawful information gathering, but their claims were dismissed by Judge Mr Justice Nicklin following an 11-week trial.
Legal Costs Hearing Underway
At the High Court, a two-day hearing has begun to determine the allocation of legal costs for the extensive trial. Lawyers representing the Duke of Sussex and the other claimants described the costs incurred by the publisher, which stood at nearly £34.5 million as of July 9, as "eye watering." They contended that ANL had exceeded its approved costs by over £18.6 million. The claimants' legal team also stated that the group had secured insurance coverage amounting to £16.2 million, intended to offset some of the publisher's expenses. Nicholas Bacon KC, representing the claimants, informed the court that ANL had "overspent what they'd told us they'd actually spent."
Unresolved Costs Exposure
The total legal bill that the claimants will ultimately be responsible for has not yet been determined. However, court submissions indicated that the current level of insurance cover "would be insufficient to meet their total costs exposure, possibly to the tune of many millions of pounds."
Associated Newspapers Limited is seeking full reimbursement of its incurred costs and has requested that these costs be awarded on an indemnity basis, a more favorable financial outcome for the publisher. ANL's argument for this basis rests on the assertion that the claimants' conduct throughout the legal proceedings was unreasonable. In written submissions, ANL's lawyers argued that cases involving wide-ranging allegations of dishonesty and serious criminal conduct against individuals require a focused and proper approach, which they claim the claimants' side disregarded, even in the face of repeated warnings from the court.