LONDON (AP) — Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John, have been ordered to pay an initial 9.5 million pounds ($13 million) to the publisher of Britain's Daily Mail newspaper following their failed invasion of privacy case — and could face an additional 25 million pounds in legal costs.
In a judgment Friday, Justice Matthew Nicklin said the payment to Associated Newspapers Ltd. must be made by Aug. 28. The payment is at the upper end of expectations and marks a vindication for journalists at the Daily Mail and a defeat for the losing claimants and their lawyers.
The claimants lost a High Court case in London last month during which they had alleged malpractice, including illegal phone hacking, on the part of Associated Newspapers. The other high-profile figures behind the case were Doreen Lawrence, the anti-racism activist whose son Stephen was stabbed to death in 1993; Elton John's film producer husband David Furnish; actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley; and politician Simon Hughes.
What the Right Is Saying
Press freedom defenders say the judgment sends a clear message that unfounded claims against newspapers carry significant financial consequences. Associated Newspapers called the outcome a "devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives."
"The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought," the publisher said in a statement. "That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession." The company noted it had incurred more than 34 million pounds during the case.
Justice Nicklin declined to impose a cap on recoverable costs, saying doing so would have been "too broad brushed" and risked being arbitrary. He noted that while the costs appeared "excessive," limiting them could create unfairness in either direction.
What the Left Is Saying
Privacy rights advocates argue that the scale of legal costs imposed on claimants discourages ordinary citizens from holding powerful media organizations accountable. Justice Nicklin's comments about the "speculative" nature of the claims drew scrutiny from groups monitoring press conduct.
"The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree," Nicklin said in his ruling, noting that claimants failed to voluntarily withdraw serious allegations that could no longer be backed up during the 11-week trial. Doreen Lawrence's costs are expected to be covered by the other claimants, raising concerns among advocates about access to justice for individuals without celebrity resources.
Hughes, a former member of the centrist Liberal Democrats, said he was "disappointed and surprised" that Associated Newspapers' recoverable costs were not limited. David Bailey-Vella, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said the ruling "could not have gone much worse" for the claimants and noted they would likely challenge the amount before costs judges.
What the Numbers Show
The initial payment ordered: 9.5 million pounds ($13 million) by Aug. 28. Additional potential liability: approximately 25 million pounds. Publisher's total legal costs incurred: more than 34 million pounds. Claims brought forward: 97 claims in the lawsuit, none of which succeeded.
Insurance coverage secured by claimants: roughly half of the estimated additional costs. The trial lasted 11 weeks earlier this year at London's High Court. Prince Harry previously won a judgment in 2023 against publishers of the Daily Mirror for "widespread and habitual" phone hacking, and Rupert Murdoch's The Sun settled another privacy case with him last year.
The Bottom Line
The claimants have until Oct. 2 to decide whether to appeal the cost ruling. Harry's defeat ended a trio of lawsuits accusing tabloid publishers of using unlawful tactics such as phone hacking or hiring private investigators. His legal campaign against British tabloids, which broke with royal tradition by seeking court relief, has been a central element of his public criticism of press practices he says damaged his relationships and made him paranoid.
The amount ultimately paid could be determined by costs judges — specialists who assess financial outcomes in civil litigation when parties cannot agree. The claimants may attempt to argue they relied on Associated Newspapers' original budget estimates when purchasing insurance and should not be liable for amounts exceeding those projections.