Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and five other high-profile claimants have been ordered to pay a huge legal bill after losing their case against Associated Newspapers (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail. In an August ruling, the judge ordered the group to pay ANL's costs on an indemnity basis, meaning the publisher does not need to demonstrate the costs were reasonable and proportionate.
ANL said it spent £35 million ($48 million) defending the claims in court. The BBC reported that the seven individuals had insurance covering up to £16.2 million of ANL's costs in the event of a loss, which means the group could still be forced to pay around £18 million - reported in the US as a $13 million-plus bill. The claimants had until October 2 to decide whether to launch an appeal.
The group had alleged that ANL engaged in unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking and other privacy invasions. The publisher has always denied the claims. The judge's ruling was a significant defeat for the claimants, who include John's husband David Furnish and British actress Liz Hurley. "Serious allegations of criminality or grave impropriety cannot properly be left hanging over individuals in that way," the judge said.
The case is one of several legal battles Prince Harry has fought against British newspaper publishers over alleged unlawful newsgathering. While he has won some of those fights, the ANL defeat - and the scale of the costs order - represents one of his most expensive setbacks. The indemnity-basis costs order is particularly punishing, removing the usual protection that limits recoverable costs to those deemed proportionate.
The ruling came as the Sussexes were reported to be moving back to the UK with their children, Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5 - a return that has itself generated enormous media attention. For Harry, the £13 million-plus bill is a stark reminder that his war with the British press carries enormous financial risk. For ANL, it is a vindication of its decision to fight the claims all the way, and a warning to future claimants about the cost of taking on Britain's biggest newspaper publishers.
The costs ruling also casts a shadow over the wider phone-hacking litigation against British newspapers, where several claimants have secured substantial settlements in recent years. Legal observers say the indemnity-basis order will make other potential claimants think twice before bringing speculative claims against well-funded publishers. For Harry, who has described his legal campaign as a mission for press accountability, the defeat is a costly lesson in the risks of taking on the newspaper industry in open court.