The losing parties are now liable for the Daily Mail's legal expenses which could reach as high as £50m

Prince Harry has faced sharp rebuke from two former justice secretaries over his verbal assault on the High Court judge who ruled against him in his hacking lawsuit against the Daily Mail's publisher.

Alex Chalk KC, who held the justice brief under Rishi Sunak, and Sir Robert Buckland KC, who served in the same role during Boris Johnson's premiership, have both condemned the Duke of Sussex's remarks following last week's judgment.

Mr Justice Nicklin rejected every one of the 97 allegations of unlawful information gathering brought by the Duke and fellow claimants, including Sir Elton John and Baroness Lawrence, against Associated Newspapers.

The defeated parties now face potential legal costs of up to £50m payable to the Mail.

The ruling, delivered last Tuesday, saw Mr Justice Nicklin comprehensively reject the case brought by the Duke and his fellow high-profile claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

Every single one of the 97 claims alleging unlawful information gathering was dismissed in its entirety by the judge.

The claimants, a group that included the musician Sir Elton John and the campaigner Baroness Lawrence alongside Prince Harry, had accused Associated Newspapers of engaging in illegal practices to obtain private information.

Their defeat carries substantial financial consequences, with the losing parties now liable for the Mail's legal expenses, which could reach as high as £50m.

In response to the verdict, Prince Harry branded the outcome a "complete and obvious whitewash" that he claimed was "sadly not altogether unexpected."

The Duke stated that the judgment marked "a complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers."

He added that "the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted."

Mr Chalk responded forcefully to these remarks, stating: "Expressing disagreement with a judgment is perfectly reasonable. But Harry's attack on a High Court judge was over the top, personal and unacceptable."

He emphasised that judges serve in the monarch's name and swear allegiance to the sovereign, adding that "insulting one of HM's judges is a line he shouldn't have crossed."

Sir Robert Buckland described the Duke's criticism as inappropriate in both "tone and content," suggesting Harry could instead have simply expressed deep disappointment and indicated he would seek advice on his options.

The former justice secretary also highlighted recent warnings from the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, regarding threats facing members of the judiciary.

She stated: "At a time when the judiciary is facing increasing threats to their security, it is important that major figures in public life and members of the Royal family exercise restraint."

Lord Garnier KC, a former solicitor-general, defended Mr Justice Nicklin's work, noting the judgment comprised "several hundred pages and about 2,000 paragraphs of analysis."

He observed that the claimants had embarked on "a hugely risky venture" that ultimately failed.