Associated has requested an immediate interim payment of £9,950,624.37, while the claimants countered with an offer of nearly £8million
Prince Harry and six fellow claimants could face personally paying Associated Newspapers Limited millions after it emerged that their insurance coverage fell way below the threshold of potential costs.
The High Court today began a two-day hearing to determine how much the group must pay Associated Newspapers after their phone hacking lawsuit was comprehensively defeated on July 7.
Mr Justice Nicklin threw out all 97 claims brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes in a 426-page ruling that found no evidence to support allegations of hacking, bugging and blagging at the Mail's titles.
The publisher is now pursuing up to £34.5million in legal costs from the group, having previously indicated that the total bill for defending the four-year litigation exceeded £50million.
Both sides accept the claimants must cover ANL’s costs, but the central dispute is whether those costs should be calculated on a standard or indemnity basis.
An indemnity order would remove the cap on recoverable costs and compel the claimants to shoulder the full weight of both sides' legal expenses. However, a reasonableness test would still apply.
Antony White KC, representing the publisher, told the court that the case had been conducted so far "outside the norm" that an indemnity award was warranted. "The circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the claimants and those in their camp, take this case well outside of the norm," his written submissions stated.
He argued that the group's claims were "pursued for the most part without any supporting documentary evidence and on the barest inferential basis."
Mr White accused the claimants of repeatedly altering or dropping their allegations mid-trial. "The extent of this shifting case was highly unreasonable and inexcusable," he said, adding that it caused Associated to waste significant time and money preparing to counter claims that were later abandoned.
The publisher characterised the overall trial approach as "chaotic and ill-disciplined," confusing witnesses.
Associated also accused the claimants of deliberately holding back documents that undermined their own case, thereby "dramatically" inflating the publisher's legal costs.
Prince Harry's post-ruling statement branding the judgment "a complete and obvious whitewash" featured prominently in Associated's submissions.
The publisher argued the Duke's reaction implied he "knew better than the judge" and had secured worldwide coverage for the continued assertion that the newspaper was guilty of the alleged wrongdoing.
"That conduct sought and achieved global publicity for a continued allegation that Associated was in fact guilty of the wrongdoing alleged," Mr White said.
Court filings revealed that each claimant holds an after-the-event insurance policy worth £2.35million, providing collective coverage of around £14.1million — but the total cap across all seven policies stands at £16.2million, potentially leaving the group to find £18.2million from their own pockets.
Nicholas Bacon KC, representing the claimants, pushed back against the publisher's arguments, insisting that Prince Harry had "brought this claim in good faith" and that the court had accepted his evidence.
He maintained that costs should be assessed on a standard basis and urged the judge to disregard the post-ruling statement from the Duke and Baroness Lawrence as entirely separate from the litigation itself. "The costs to be ordered at this hearing concern the action itself, not the reaction to it," Mr Bacon told the court.
The claimants' legal team also indicated that no decision on a potential appeal would be taken until after Mr Justice Nicklin had delivered his ruling on costs and consequential matters arising from the hearing.
If the full £34.5million were awarded and divided equally, each claimant would face a personal bill of roughly £2.6million.
