Duke of Sussex's case against Daily Mail publisher to return to court

The Duke of Sussex's legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail is scheduled to resume in court this week, after a High Court judge threw out the claims earlier this month. The hearing, set to begin at 10.30am on Wednesday, will deal with outstanding matters including legal costs and the possibility of an appeal.

Seven prominent individuals, among them Sir Elton John and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, brought the case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). They alleged that 97 articles published by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday were sourced through unlawful methods such as voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception, known as blagging. ANL strongly denied the accusations, arguing that journalists used legitimate sources including friends, press officers and freelance reporters.

Read Next in Barnet Press2 min read

Sunseeker Holiday Homes enters administration

The Hull-based manufacturer, founded in 2019, has appointed administrators, putting 76 jobs at risk.

Costs and possible appeal

The two-day hearing this week is expected to focus on the financial consequences of the failed case. ANL has stated that it has already incurred costs of more than £50 million, and the court will determine what proportion the claimants must pay. The judge will also hear whether any of the seven intend to appeal against the July 7 ruling, which dismissed the claims in their entirety after an 11-week trial.

Related Borough Coverage4 min read

Enfield Town Liveable Neighbourhood scheme paused pending review

Transport for London funding for next phase is on hold as council re-evaluates project elements.

“We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”

Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, joint statement

Background to the claims

The trial, which took place in London earlier this year, heard evidence from dozens of witnesses, including the claimants and current and former ANL journalists and executives. The court examined 97 articles published between 1993 and 2011 that the group claimed were based on illegally obtained private information.

In his 436-page judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the claimants had failed to prove their case. He wrote that the court could not conclude that articles were unlawfully sourced simply because the information was private and the publisher could not explain how it was obtained. Paul Dacre, ANL editor-in-chief and former Daily Mail editor, described the action as a 'trumped-up action' that should never have reached trial.

What happens next

The court will hear arguments on costs and any applications for permission to appeal during the two-day hearing. If any of the claimants decide to appeal, the case could proceed to the Court of Appeal. Meanwhile, the dismissal of the claims stands, and the publisher has been cleared of the allegations of unlawful information-gathering.