Prince Harry media battle legal bill expected to cost millions

Prince Harry and a group of high‑profile claimants are confronting a potential legal bill that could run into many millions of pounds after losing their privacy claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail. The claimants – the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and actress Elizabeth Hurley – brought the case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), alleging unlawful information gathering. Earlier this month, Judge Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all of their claims following an 11‑week trial. On Wednesday the High Court opened a two‑day hearing to decide which party will bear the costs of the lengthy proceedings. In written submissions, the claimants’ lawyers described ANL’s expenses as “eye watering”, stating that the publisher had incurred roughly £34.5 million as of 9 July. They argued that ANL had exceeded its approved budget by about £18.6 million and pointed out that the claimants were insured to cover a portion of the publisher’s outlay. Nicholas Bacon KC, representing the claimants, told the tribunal that the claimants had taken out insurance cover totalling £16.2 million and accused ANL of having “overspent what they'd told america they'd really spent”. The total amount the claimants may ultimately owe has not yet been fixed. However, the tribunal was told that the “current level of screen would beryllium insufficient to conscionable their full costs exposure, perchance to the tune of galore millions of pounds.” ANL maintains that the claimants should repay the full costs it incurred and has sought an indemnity‑basis payment, which would be more favourable to the publisher financially. The publisher also contends that the claimants behaved unreasonably during the litigation, a conduct that could activate an indemnity clause. In its own written submissions, ANL’s lawyers wrote: “Where claims impact wide-ranging allegations of dishonesty and superior transgression behaviour against named individuals, a focused, liable and due attack is required arsenic the norm.” They added: “The Claimants' behaviour of this litigation wholly disregarded these cardinal disciplines. In galore cases this was successful the look of repeated warnings by the Court arsenic to the due attack to be taken.”