Prince Harry and Six Others Face Legal Bill of Up to £34.5m

Prince Harry and six other high-profile figures could face a legal bill of up to £34.5 million after losing a privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

The seven claimants, including Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, have been ordered to make an initial payment of £9.54 million to Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) by next Friday.

The ruling was made by High Court Judge Mr Justice Nicklin, who said the case was unusual because the claimants could be required to pay substantially more than the legal costs agreed before the trial.

The judge criticised the way the claimants had presented their case, describing their approach as “unreasonable to a high degree.”

On 7 July, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed their claims that ANL had been involved in unlawful information-gathering. The publisher had strongly denied the allegations.

The seven claimants have until 2 October to seek permission to appeal the judgment.

The other claimants are Sir Elton John’s husband, David Furnish, former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Sir Simon Hughes, Baroness Lawrence, and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley.

The group had insurance covering up to £16.2 million of ANL’s legal costs if they lost the case. However, Friday’s ruling means the publisher can seek to recover a much larger sum, with ANL saying its total defence costs could reach £34.5 million.

This could leave the claimants facing an additional bill of around £18 million beyond their insurance cover.

Mr Justice Nicklin said a claim for costs exceeding £34 million appeared excessive and raised concerns about whether all of the costs had been reasonably incurred.

However, he declined to place a specific limit on the amount ANL could recover, saying such a restriction could be unfair or arbitrary.

The judge also ordered that ANL’s costs should generally be assessed on an indemnity basis, which can allow a successful party to recover a greater proportion of its legal expenses.

He was particularly critical of the claimants for failing to withdraw serious allegations of wrongdoing during the proceedings.

The judge said allegations involving criminality or serious misconduct should not remain against individuals when there was no longer a proper evidential basis for them.

ANL described the ruling as a “devastating critique” of what it called an attempt to damage the newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.

Sir Simon Hughes said he was disappointed by the judgment and was considering whether to appeal either the main judgment, the costs ruling, or both.

Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence previously criticised the judgment, saying they had gone to court seeking justice and accountability but had received neither.

The case involved extensive evidence from the seven claimants, as well as current and former ANL journalists and executives. Prince Harry travelled from the United States to attend the High Court proceedings in person.

Complex legal costs battle ahead

The latest ruling does not necessarily mean ANL will recover the full £34.5 million.

In civil cases, the losing side normally pays the successful party’s reasonable legal costs, as well as its own expenses. Costs are often agreed and capped before a trial begins.

ANL had initially sought an interim payment of more than £9.9 million, but the full scale of its legal spending only became clear after it won the case.

Former specialist costs judge Colin Campbell said the ruling was a significant victory for Associated Newspapers because the publisher was no longer restricted by the previously approved costs budget.

However, he said the case was “far from game, set and match” for ANL because the judge had described the proposed £34.5 million bill as exceptionally high and excessive.

That criticism could become important when the publisher seeks to recover its legal costs in full.

BBC.