The litigation costs Prince Harry and six other household names must pay the Daily Mail's publisher are set to be decided on Friday, after the group lost its high-profile phone-hacking case. Under the general rule in English and Welsh civil litigation that the losing side pays the winning party's reasonably incurred costs, the July defeat left the seven claimants facing the publisher's legal bill, with Friday's hearing set to address how much must be paid and on what basis.

The celebrity group waged a long-running legal battle against Associated Newspapers over allegations of illegal information gathering and phone hacking, but their claims were dismissed in July following an 11-week trial. Editor-in-chief of Associated Newspapers, Paul Dacre, said in a lengthy statement that the ruling was "an overwhelming vindication of our journalism".

The Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes brought the lawsuit in 2022, claiming serious privacy breaches dating back over 30 years.

The judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, said the claimants had failed to prove the allegations and dismissed all their claims, noting the evidence "did not prove that the relevant information must have been obtained unlawfully". Lawyers for the Duke of Sussex indicated after the ruling that they would seek permission to appeal.

The defeat was a rare full-trial win for a tabloid publisher in the phone-hacking litigation that has run through the English courts for well over a decade, during which Mirror Group Newspapers and News Group Newspapers have paid substantial settlements to hacking claimants. The Duke of Sussex won £140,600 in damages against Mirror Group Newspapers in December 2023 and settled his claim against News Group Newspapers, publisher of The Sun, for substantial damages in January 2025.

In written submissions to the court, lawyers for the Duke of Sussex and the other claimants described the costs racked up by the publisher as "eye watering".

"Given the stakes, the battle over costs will be just as hard fought as the main claim was – and unless there is a settlement, it will not be a quick process. The costs of the Wagatha Christie libel case, which were significantly less, took two years and seven months to resolve," said David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers.

Ahead of the trial, the High Court intervened to manage the spiralling costs and approved legal budgets of around £4m per side for the trial alone. However, the costs incurred by the publisher alone are estimated to have come to over £34m, with the final amount expected to be decided on Friday.

The claimants took out insurance to cover £16.2m of these costs, but according to Colin Campbell, a costs law consultant at Kain Knight and former costs judge at the Royal Courts of Justice, there is a question over who in the group will be expected to pay.

"If insurance is only covering £16.2m, there will be a shortfall which the claimants may have to pay, which then brings in to play the question of who pays this", Campbell told City AM.

Campbell said the publisher "will definitely try and pursue Prince Harry" for the payment.

The former costs judge said a final costs assessment will take place if the parties cannot agree on an amount tomorrow, but said this is "very unlikely."

"There's so much money being spent, they'll try and settle it tomorrow," he said.

『多くの批判者』が王子の訴訟対応を非難

Associated Newspapers argued the claimants must pay back the costs in full, and at the end of July applied for these to be awarded on an indemnity basis – a potentially larger financial payout.

Campbell said, however, this is "an issue" as it refers to the claimants' conduct of the litigation. If the court decides the costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis, the newspaper must prove the claimants' conduct was "unreasonable to a high degree" or "out of the norm", he added.

Campbell said there "were a lot of critics" pointing to Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence's conduct throughout the litigation and their claim the case "was a white wash". However, he said the judge will likely not consider this, as the comments were made after the judgement.

Source: City AM