RESOLVING THE LEDGER
This is one outlet's own report from The Straits Times — 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 · 8 sourcesBritain’s Prince Harry says a court ruling throwing out his case against the Daily Mail was a “complete and obvious whitewash”.
Listen Summarise Prince Harry, Elton John and others must pay an initial £9.54 million (S$16.5 million) to cover the Daily Mail publisher's legal fees. Judge Matthew Nicklin criticised the claimants for relying on “speculative and inferential” allegations, describing their case as “unreasonable to a high degree”. Associated Newspapers faced legal costs of £34.5 million, far exceeding the claimants' £16 million insurance cover. AI generated
LONDON – Prince Harry, Elton John and other high-profile claimants face paying millions of dollars out of their own pockets to cover the legal costs of the Daily Mail’s publisher after a judge ruled their failed privacy lawsuits were conducted in an unreasonable way.
Judge Matthew Nicklin’s judgment on costs, which was published on Aug 21, also ordered an interim payment from the claimants of £9.54 million (S$16.5 million) towards the legal costs of Associated Newspapers.
Judge Matthew Nicklin comprehensively rejected in July the case brought by King Charles’ younger son, John and five others, rejecting allegations that the Mail titles engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.
The Aug 21 judgment delivered a damaging blow to Harry and the others by ruling that the outstanding amount should be paid on an “indemnity basis”.
This means that, as the losing party, the prince and the others must pay towards Associated Newspapers’ costs without the publisher needing to show these were reasonable and proportionate.
Explaining his decision, Nicklin was highly critical of the way the claimants’ case was put, including that serious allegations rested on “speculative and inferential” foundations.
“In my judgment, the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree,” Nicklin said.
A spokesman for Harry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A spokesman for Associated called the ruling “another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism”.
The court was told at a hearing in July that Associated incurred a legal bill of £34.5 million, while Harry and the other claimants only had an insurance policy that covered £16 million.
Associated’s lawyer Antony White argued the claimants made wide-ranging and serious “egregious” allegations without supporting evidence that had added to their costs.
He also said Harry’s statement following the ruling was an abuse of his position and celebrity status.
Nicholas Bacon, lawyer for the claimants, said in their submissions that Associated’s £34.5 million legal bill was “eye-watering”, far exceeding an agreed budget. REUTERS
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.