A former government minister involved in a high-profile privacy lawsuit alongside several celebrities has sought to distance himself from the broader legal campaign against the publisher Associated Newspapers. Sir Simon Hughes, who joined Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence, Sir Elton John and others in bringing claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher, clarified in a recent court hearing that he did not intend to target Associated Newspapers or its staff.

The group’s legal action, which alleged unlawful newsgathering methods including hacking, bugging, and blagging, was dismissed in full earlier this month following a four-year court battle. The judge overseeing the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, described the litigation as part of a campaign by some claimants to push for tighter press regulations. None of the claimants appeared at a two-day hearing in the High Court in London this week focused on deciding the extent of their financial liability for the publisher’s legal costs.

Associated Newspapers has indicated that defending the case has cost approximately £34 million. The publisher argued that the claimants handled their allegations recklessly, continuing to pursue claims despite a lack of evidence and dropping others unceremoniously. As a result, the publisher requested that the court impose costs on an indemnity basis, which would relieve the court from determining whether the expenses were proportionate to the case. The claimants have described the publisher’s costs as “eye-watering,” noting that they exceed the court-approved budget by some £18.6 million. Their insurance policies cover up to £16.2 million of the costs.

During proceedings, Sir Simon Hughes, who was also a former justice minister and senior MP, issued a statement through his legal representatives emphasizing that he was not campaigning against Associated Newspapers and had not aligned his lawsuit with that of the celebrity claimants. However, counsel for Associated Newspapers highlighted that Hughes had made serious allegations accusing the publisher of extensive criminal conduct and has yet to retract any of these claims.

Mr Justice Nicklin indicated that Sir Simon would have an opportunity to reflect on the way his case was conducted and assess whether it achieved his original goals. The court is expected to deliver a judgment on the calculation and basis of costs in mid-August, which will determine the sum the claimants are required to pay. The final decision will clarify whether the costs will be awarded on the standard or indemnity basis.