The stakes remain extraordinarily high for the Duke of Sussex, who now faces the prospect of a substantial financial liability on top of his courtroom loss

Prince Harry's heart will be in his mouth over the next two days as his case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) returns to the High Court.

The legal battle is back in court for a two-day hearing that could prove pivotal for all parties involved.

The Duke of Sussex and his six fellow claimants, among them Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, were dealt a comprehensive defeat earlier this month when their claims of unlawful information-gathering against the Daily Mail publisher were thrown out entirely.

The forthcoming hearing is set to address matters of legal costs and whether any of the claimants intend to challenge the ruling.

ANL has disclosed that its costs have already surpassed £50 million.

The stakes remain extraordinarily high for the Duke, who now faces the prospect of a substantial financial liability on top of his courtroom loss.

Attention has now turned to the question of who must cover the legal costs arising from the unsuccessful four-year lawsuit, which was valued at £50 million.

Associated Newspapers is pursuing costs of approximately £34 million, requesting that the court impose payment on an indemnity basis rather than at the standard rate.

The publisher contends that the claimants and their lawyers conducted the litigation in an "egregious" manner, warranting the elevated costs order.

Should judges grant such an order, it would go further than a standard costs assessment, compelling the seven claimants to shoulder the bulk of both sides' legal expenses.

Any sums awarded under an indemnity order would nonetheless remain subject to a test of reasonableness, meaning the court retains discretion over the final figure.

The case centred on 97 articles which the group alleged had been obtained through illegal methods.

ANL firmly rejected those accusations throughout an 11-week trial held in London earlier this year.

Mr Justice Nicklin delivered his verdict on July 7, rejecting every single claim across a comprehensive 436-page judgment.

The judge determined that the claimants had not proved their allegations of unlawful information-gathering and accepted the journalists' lawful explanations for how their stories were sourced.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin stated: "In substance, the claimants' case invites the court to conclude that, because the information was private and because Associated cannot positively explain how it was sourced, the article must have been unlawfully sourced. That is not a permissible approach."

ANL's editor-in-chief Paul Dacre was scathing in his assessment of the litigation, branding it a "trumped-up action" that "should never have been brought to trial".

Dacre went further, accusing the Duke of being "confused and angry" and claiming the failed lawsuit formed part of a wider "conspiracy against the free press".

He argued that Prince Harry had been swayed by campaigners into pursuing the case.

The judge's reasoning was unequivocal. He found that the claimants had entirely failed to establish their pleaded allegations of unlawful information-gathering, concluding that every one of the 97 articles in question had been legitimately sourced.

Mr Justice Nicklin fully endorsed the explanations offered by journalists regarding how their reporting was obtained.

The Duke and Baroness Lawrence hit back at the verdict in a joint statement, declaring: "We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither."

They branded the outcome a "complete and obvious whitewash", though acknowledged it was "not altogether unexpected".

The pair pointed to what they saw as glaring contradictions with rulings in related phone-hacking cases against News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers.

They argued that courts in those parallel proceedings had found private investigators engaged in unlawful activity during the same period, involving comparable stories and prominent individuals.

"The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the courtroom itself," they said.

They added that the court's efforts to clear the Mail were "as shocking as it is totally unwarranted".

Prince Harry now faces an anxious wait to see the full extent of the costs he will be asked to pay.