LONDON — Britain's Prince Harry, singer Elton John and other high-profile claimants face paying millions out of their own pockets to cover the legal costs of the Daily Mail's publisher, after a judge ruled that their failed privacy lawsuits were conducted in an unreasonable way.

Judge Matthew Nicklin's judgment on costs, published on Friday, ordered an interim payment from the claimants of £9.54 million, due by August 28, toward the legal costs of Associated Newspapers. The full extent of the payments due to Associated was not announced on Friday; if it cannot be agreed between the parties, the company's costs will be assessed in separate proceedings.

In a further damaging blow, Nicklin said the additional costs should be paid on an "indemnity basis," meaning Associated does not need to show that they were reasonable and proportionate.

The order follows Nicklin's decision last month to comprehensively reject the case brought by King Charles' younger son, John and five other figures, dismissing allegations that the Mail titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.

Unreasonable conduct "to a high degree"

Explaining the decision on costs, Nicklin was highly critical of the way the claimants' case had been put, noting that serious allegations had rested on "speculative and inferential" foundations and had not been withdrawn when they were no longer being pursued. The judge said the case required proof that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully, but that suspicion alone was not enough, underscoring why the underlying claims failed after an 11-week trial at London's High Court.

"In my judgment, the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree," Nicklin said.

A spokesman for Associated Newspapers called the ruling "another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism." There was no comment from Harry's spokesperson. In July, Harry called the dismissal of the lawsuit "a complete and obvious whitewash."

Judgment comes as Harry prepares to return to the UK

The ruling comes days after the surprise news that Harry, who stepped down from official duties in 2020, will return with his wife Meghan and their two children to live in Britain from their current home in California.

The prince, 41, has long blamed the press for the 1997 Paris car crash that killed his mother, Princess Diana, and has compared her treatment to that of his American wife Meghan. Holding back tears in the witness box in January, he said the Daily Mail had made Meghan's life "an absolute misery."

Harry had previously won against the publisher of the Daily Mirror tabloid and had settled a claim with Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper arm, but the latest ruling is a significant defeat in his battles with the media.

Claimants' insurance cover falls short of estimated costs

The court was told at a hearing in July that Associated had incurred a legal bill of £34.5 million ($45.8 million), while Harry and the other claimants held only an insurance policy covering £16 million. That gap means the costs ruling could leave the group facing more than the cover they arranged, although the eventual total has not yet been set.

Associated's lawyer Antony White argued that the claimants had made wide-ranging, serious and "egregious" allegations without supporting evidence, which had added to the company's costs. He also said Harry's statement following the ruling was an abuse of his position and celebrity status.

Nicholas Bacon, the lawyer for the claimants, said in their submissions that Associated's £34.5 million legal bill was "eye-watering" and far exceeded an agreed budget.

In his ruling rejecting the lawsuits of Harry and the others at London's High Court following an 11-week trial, Nicklin said the claimants had needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully. They had failed to do so, he said, and suspicion alone was not enough.

No decision has yet been made on whether the claimants will appeal.