Prince Harry and others to pay initial US$13m over failed invasion of privacy case

LONDON (AP):

Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John, have been ordered to pay an initial £ 9.5 million (US$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 yesterday, Justice Matthew Nicklin said in a written statement that the payment to Associated Newspapers Ltd will have to be made by August 28. The payment is at the upper end of expectations and marks a vindication for the 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, such as the illegal hacking of phones, 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 as he waited for a bus; Elton John’s film producer husband David Furnish; actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley; and politician Simon Hughes. Lawrence’s costs are expected to be covered by the others.

In excoriating comments accompanying his award, Nicklin said “several features” were important in his decision, including the “speculative” nature of the claims and the failure of the claimants to “voluntarily” withdraw serious allegations that could no longer be backed up.

“The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree,” he said.

The publisher has said it incurred more than £34 million during the case. Should it pursue the claimants for the remainder of the costs, and get the necessary legal approval to do so, then Harry and the six others will be liable for a further £5 million or so.

The claimants took out insurance for around half of that total, in line with the budget estimates provided at the outset by the lawyers working for Associated Newspapers.

Though the judge said the costs appeared “excessive”, he said he would not impose a cap that would have limited the claimants’ liabilities as it would have been “too broad brushed, would risk unfairness, and would be vulnerable to the charge that it was arbitrary”.

The amount that will be paid could well be determined in the future by costs judges, specialists who assess and determine financial outcomes in civil litigation when parties cannot agree.

David Bailey-Vella, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said the ruling “could not have gone much worse” for the claimants.

He said the claimants will “surely try again before the costs judges to try and show they relied on Associated’s original budget when buying the insurance and so should not have to pay more”.

Hughes, a former member of the centrist Liberal Democrats, said he was “disappointed and surprised” that Associated Newspapers’ recoverable costs were not limited.

None of the other claimants have yet commented on the judge’s decision. They have until October 2 to decide whether to appeal.

The publisher had strongly denied the claims made during the 11-week trial in London earlier this year. In his July 7 judgment, Nicklin said there had been a shortage of evidence to support the 97 claims, and found there was a possibility that the reporting came from legitimate sources.

In a statement following the decision, Associated Newspapers said the judgment is 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,” it said. “That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession.”

The judgment comes two days after it was made public that Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, are moving back to the UK. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who are no longer working royals, decamped to California more than six years ago but will relocate back later this month to live in a non-royal residence outside London.

Harry’s defeat against Associated Newspapers brought an end to a trio of lawsuits accusing tabloid publishers of using unlawful tactics, such as phone hacking or hiring private detectives to dig up dirt on his life.