The Duke of Sussex and six other high-profile figures could face paying millions of pounds from their own pockets to cover the costs of their failed legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
The group, which includes Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Sir Elton John, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information-gathering. ANL strongly denied the claims, and after an 11-week trial in London, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the claims in their entirety on July 7 in a 436-page judgment.
Costs Hearing at High Court
The cases returned to the High Court on Wednesday for a hearing on costs. The court heard that ANL's costs are more than £34 million, but the group has insurance cover of only £16.2 million, leaving a shortfall. The judge is considering whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis, which would be more favourable to ANL.
Antony White KC, for ANL, said the legal claims were brought for a “collateral purpose” of pressuring the Government into introducing the second stage of the Leveson Inquiry, describing it as “a campaign rather than ordinary and reasonable litigation.” He said the cases “were launched in a blaze of publicity knowing that these were likely to attract significant attention on the world stage” with a press release in October 2022.
Arguments Over Costs Basis
White also said that Baroness Lawrence was “recruited as the national treasure,” adding: “That is a matter of regret for my client, but it is not to be shrunk from.” He criticised the breadth of the allegations and how they “shifted,” saying the claimants cast a “strikingly wide” net “in the hope of catching some fish.”
Nicholas Bacon KC, for the claimants, argued against indemnity costs, saying it could be “very significant” if the group had to pay on that stricter basis, leaving them without enough insurance cover. He noted that ANL’s incurred costs as of earlier this month were nearly £34.5 million, which “exceed its approved budget” by more than £18.6 million. He described it as “an astonishingly high legal spend by Associated and an entirely cavalier approach to the principle of proportionality.”
Bacon said the claimants have “conducted themselves honestly and in good faith,” and that the court largely accepted their evidence and declined to find dishonesty. “It would, however, be unjust to make an order that they do so on the indemnity basis,” he added.
The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is expected to conclude on Wednesday or Thursday, with a written decision at a later date.
