RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from Page Six — the article as it was filed. Other outlets are covering the same event; open the full story to compare every source side by side.
See the full story · 1 sourcesSee more of our coverage in your search results.
Add Page Six on Google Prince Harry and his co-claimants may have to pay $13.3 million to the Daily Mail's publisher after he lost a privacy lawsuit earlier this month.
Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) is seeking the interim payment from the Duke of Sussex, Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and other plaintiffs from the 2022 lawsuit, which alleged that the publication unlawfully obtained information about them, Reuters reported Wednesday.
ANL's attorney Anthony White argued in court that his client's legal costs should be covered by the high-profile figures, starting with the advance payment until the court calculates the final amount owed.
ANL claimed it spent more than $45 million on legal fees, but the claimants, including Harry's team, argued that it exceeded the approved budget.
In a written submission, the claimants offered an advance payment of around $10 million instead of the requested $13.3 million, per Reuters.
Additionally, they stated that they had insurance that could cover more than $21 million in legal fees.
"Of course, the (claimants) accept that their claims have been dismissed and it is appropriate that an order for costs on the standard basis follows the event," the submission reads.
While the claimants accepted they should pay ANL's legal costs after losing the case, they argued that the interim payment sought and ANL's request for indemnity costs were excessive.
Reps for Harry, 41, Hurley, 61, and John, 79, weren't immediately available to Page Six for comment.
Earlier this month, Harry and the other claimants lost their 2022 lawsuit after an 11-week court battle.
In the lawsuit, the claimants accused ANL of unlawfully obtaining information about them by placing listening devices in cars and homes, and using private detectives from the 1990s to 2011.
Harry specifically accused ANL of targeting him through flight information, phone bills and tapping his phone.
The claimants, however, were unable to provide sufficient evidence, and ANL vehemently denied the allegations against them.
In a statement to Page Six, Harry and claimant Baroness Doreen Lawrence labeled the court's decision as “whitewashed," saying "We came to court seeking justice and accountability."
"This judgment represents 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 (who were represented by, at the time, the judge who made this decision),” they continued.
“Generic findings about various private investigators that were held by the courts in these parallel claims to have carried out unlawful activity at the very same time in relation to similar stories and well-known individuals have been wholly ignored.”
Harry and Lawrence also called out the court's “inconsistency," saying it was "hard to understand or reconcile with common sense” after the evidence was dismissed.
Your voice matters. Discussions are moderated for civility. Read our guidelines here
Community Guidelines Welcome to the Page Six Community! Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas in a safe space.
In order to do so, we've created a simple set of rules that will improve your experience.
Your post will/might be rejected if it contains:
User accounts will/might be blocked if we notice:
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Don't forget, freedom of speech is not the freedom of reach!
AIPROPX is an independent multi-source news index — we track, compare, and connect coverage from across the web into one place you won't find anywhere else.