Prince Harry and five other prominent figures are asking the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the High Court’s dismissal of their privacy claims against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The move follows a ruling in July that went against the group and a subsequent costs order that could leave them liable for as much as £34.5m in joint legal fees. The application for permission to appeal is the latest step in the Mail privacy case appeal effort.
A spokesperson for the claimants said the group had filed applications with the Court of Appeal seeking leave to challenge both the trial judge’s rejection of their claims and the indemnity costs order made afterward. The statement described the decisions as legally and factually flawed and said the claimants respectfully disagreed with them.
Who is involved
The group that lost at trial included Prince Harry, singer Sir Elton John, actress Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton’s husband David Furnish, actress Sadie Frost and political campaigner Baroness Lawrence. Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes was also part of the original action, but the joint statement did not refer to him. Whether he will join the appeal was not immediately clear from the statement.
After the costs ruling, Sir Simon told the BBC he was disappointed and would take the time needed to consider both the substantive judgment and the costs judgment before deciding whether to pursue appeals against either or both.
What the High Court decided
The claims were heard over an 11-week trial in London. In July, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the allegations of unlawful information gathering. Associated Newspapers had strongly denied the claims throughout. After the judgment, a spokesperson for the publisher called the outcome an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.
Prince Harry gave evidence in person during the civil hearing. He argued that details appearing in 14 articles about him plainly showed that journalists had been listening in to phone calls. The judge concluded that the prince had not proved that allegation.
During the trial, numerous current and former Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists and executives gave evidence denying accusations of illegal activity put to them by lawyers for the claimants. Lawyers for the publisher told the court that the journalists had given a compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing, including information from friends and from what were described as leaky social circles around the people covered in the articles.
The costs ruling
In August, a month after his main judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that this was a rare case in which the claimants should pay far more than the costs that had been agreed before trial. He ordered an initial payment of £9.54m while the final total was calculated. The figure of up to £34.5m reflects the potential joint legal costs facing the group.
Under the usual convention in civil litigation, the losing side must reimburse the other side’s reasonable legal fees and also cover its own costs. The indemnity costs order in this case went beyond the standard approach and is one of the targets of the proposed appeal.
What happens next
The Court of Appeal will now consider whether to grant permission. The claimants’ application covers both the dismissal of their substantive claims and the costs order. No date for a decision was given in the statement.
The case remains one of the most closely watched media privacy disputes in recent years, drawing together several high-profile public figures and a major national newspaper publisher. For now, the focus shifts to the Court of Appeal and whether it will allow the challenge to proceed.
