Prince Harry and six other high-profile individuals may be required to pay millions of pounds in legal costs after their phone hacking lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail was dismissed. The High Court is currently considering whether the claimants should bear a substantial portion of Associated Newspapers' legal expenses, which the publisher states are around £34 million.
Associated Newspapers argues that the four-year legal action, estimated to be worth £50 million, was pursued in a manner that was "outside the norm," "cavalier," and "highly unreasonable and inexcusable." The publisher's legal team contends that certain aspects of the three-month trial earlier this year were not only unfair to the journalists involved but also in "flagrant breach" of the judge's directives. All allegations that Mail journalists engaged in phone hacking, bugging, or blagging for stories were dismissed in a ruling on July 7.
Conduct of the Claimants' Case
In written submissions to the court, Associated Newspapers' lawyers detailed the alleged conduct of the claimants and their legal team, stating it warranted an order for costs to be paid on an "indemnity basis." Such an order would allow judges to exceed standard costs and compel the claimants to cover the full legal expenses for both sides, subject to a reasonableness test. Associated Newspapers' lead barrister, Antony White KC, argued that the individual cases were largely pursued without supporting documentary evidence and relied on "barest inferential basis." He further stated that the shifting nature of the claims led to significant wasted costs and time for Associated as allegations were abandoned or changed during the trial.
White accused the claimants of adopting a "scattergun approach" by making serious allegations without identifying supporting evidence, describing it as "improper and cavalier." He also alleged that the claimants withheld crucial documents that were detrimental to their case and that claims regarding voicemail interception were "particularly egregious."
Associated Newspapers suggested that the lawsuit was part of a political campaign, codenamed Operation Bluebird, aimed at pressuring the government to order a new Leveson inquiry into press standards. The publisher's legal team pointed to the claimants' research team, which reportedly included figures from the Hacked Off campaign and a convicted phone hacker. They also highlighted that a key witness statement, purportedly from a former private investigator, was not proven to be his and its contents were deemed unreliable by the trial judge.
Claimants' Response
Lawyers for Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes argued that it would be "unjust" for the court to award costs on an indemnity basis. In their court submissions, they maintained that their allegations were "neither speculative nor weak." While acknowledging that the court expressed some concerns about litigation conduct, they argued these should be weighed against the entirety of the extensive litigation.
The claimants' legal team described Associated's legal bill as "astonishingly high" and suggested the publisher was seeking maximum financial redress to "teach the claimants a lesson." They asserted that Associated had adopted a "no expense spared" approach and argued that this should not be condoned by the court. They also noted that an indemnity costs order would have a "particularly harsh impact" on the seven individual claimants, who would bear personal liability for costs exceeding their insurance coverage. The claimants' lawyers stated they approached the litigation in good faith, having faced "decades of intense, intrusive media scrutiny into their private lives."
The hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London is scheduled to last up to two days, with a judgment expected at a later date.