Prince Harry, other high profile claimants face multi million pound bill over failed lawsuit
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Prince Harry, Elton John, and other claimants must pay millions in legal costs after their privacy lawsuits against the Daily Mail's publisher failed.
- A judge ruled their case was conducted unreasonably, ordering an interim payment of over ยฃ9.5 million towards Associated Newspapers' legal bill.
- The publisher called the ruling an "overwhelming victory," while the claimants face a significant financial burden due to the indemnity basis of the cost order.
Prince Harry, Elton John, and several other high-profile individuals face a substantial financial penalty after their privacy lawsuits against the Daily Mail's publisher were dismissed. A judge has ordered them to pay millions of pounds towards the legal costs of Associated Newspapers, ruling that their case was conducted in an "unreasonable" manner.
Judge Matthew Nicklin's judgment on costs, published Friday, mandates an interim payment of ยฃ9.54 million ($45.8 million) from the claimants to Associated Newspapers. This ruling follows the judge's comprehensive rejection of the case last month, which alleged widespread unlawful activities by the Mail titles, including phone hacking. The judge found that serious allegations made by the claimants rested on "speculative and inferential" foundations.
In my judgment, the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.
Adding to the claimants' setback, the outstanding legal costs must be paid on an "indemnity basis." This means the publisher does not need to prove the reasonableness or proportionality of its ยฃ34.5 million legal bill. The claimants' insurance policy only covered ยฃ16 million of their own legal expenses, leaving them responsible for the significant shortfall and the publisher's costs.
Associated Newspapers hailed the decision as "another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism." The publisher's lawyer argued that the claimants made wide-ranging and "egregious" allegations without sufficient supporting evidence. The court was told that the claimants' conduct went "well outside the norm" and was "unreasonable to a high degree."
Another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism.
Originally published by Jerusalem Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.