The Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, along with six other high-profile individuals, faces a substantial legal costs bill following the dismissal of their privacy lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). The High Court in London heard arguments this week over who should bear the £34.5 million in legal costs accrued during the four-year litigation, which was resolved earlier this month when Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all 97 claims in full.

The group of claimants includes Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, model Elizabeth Hurley, actress Sadie Frost, and former Liberal Democrat minister Sir Simon Hughes. They had alleged unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators working for ANL, including phone hacking, bugging, and blagging. However, the court found a lack of supporting evidence for the claims, leading to their comprehensive rejection.

ANL is seeking an initial payment of approximately £10 million within 14 days as part of a broader effort to recover legal costs on what is known as an “indemnity basis.” This form of costs assessment could compel the claimants to cover the publisher’s full expenses without regard to the usual proportionality tests, potentially exposing them to liabilities well beyond their combined legal insurance cover. Together, the claimants had obtained individual after-the-event (ATE) insurance policies valued at £2.7 million each, totalling around £16.2 million. This leaves a potential shortfall exceeding £18 million.

Representing the publisher, Antony White KC described the claimants’ conduct during litigation as “highly unusual,” “cavalier,” and “outrageous.” He criticised the claimants for pursuing serious allegations with minimal documentary evidence, for disregarding the judge’s directions, and for conducting a “scattergun” approach that caused confusion and increased ANL’s legal costs dramatically. He also highlighted the public statements made by Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence after the judgment, referring to it as a “complete and obvious whitewash,” which he said unfairly impugned the integrity of the court and the media outlet.

The claimants’ legal team, led by Nicholas Bacon KC, conceded the defeat but defended their clients, insisting the claims were pursued honestly and in good faith. They argued the refusal of the claims and the high costs should not justify an indemnity costs order, which they described as disproportionately punitive. Bacon noted that ANL’s total legal expenditures far exceeded the court-approved budget of £20 million, a figure that had not been properly disclosed during the proceedings. The claimants offered a lower interim payment of about £8 million, which ANL considers insufficient.

The case has drawn considerable attention due to the high-profile nature of those involved and the scale of the legal costs. Legal experts have noted that, while indemnity costs orders are rare, the conduct of the claimants and the extensive duration and complexity of the case provide grounds for the publisher’s application. The costs hearing remains ongoing, with the court yet to rule on the scale and timing of payments or the possibility of further appeals.

Prince Harry, 41, has maintained his stance on the case following its dismissal, asserting publicly that the judgment does not fully address the issues raised in the litigation. Baroness Lawrence, 73, and other claimants have echoed concerns over press practices despite the court’s findings. ANL, however, continues to reject all allegations of wrongdoing and seeks full recovery of its legal expenses.