Prince Harry and Co-Claimants Lose Privacy Case Against Daily Mail Publisher
The High Court dismissed 97 claims alleging unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers, leaving the parties to confront a potentially substantial costs dispute.
Prince Harry and six other claimants have lost their High Court privacy case against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline.
Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin dismissed all 97 claims after a 46-day trial, ruling that the allegations of unlawful information gathering had not been proved.
The Duke of Sussex brought the action alongside Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes.
They alleged that the publisher had, between 1993 and 2011, obtained private information through unlawful means including phone interception, deception and the use of private investigators.
Associated Newspapers denied the accusations.
The judge found that the claimants could not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the material in question had been sourced unlawfully.
He rejected the proposition that the private nature of information, coupled with the publisher's inability to identify its precise source many years later, was sufficient to prove illegality.
In a number of instances, the court concluded that there remained realistic and lawful routes by which information could have reached journalists.
The ruling is a comprehensive defeat for the group in a case that examined the sourcing of decades-old articles and records.
It does not endorse the allegations against Associated Newspapers; rather, it finds that the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold required to sustain them.
Harry called the judgment a "complete and obvious whitewash".
The publisher described the result as an overwhelming victory and said it vindicated the integrity of its journalists' reporting.
The case carries considerable financial consequences.
Legal costs have been estimated at roughly £40 million to £50 million, although the final allocation has yet to be determined.
Associated Newspapers has indicated that it will seek to recover the costs of defending the proceedings.
The judgment is distinct from Harry's successful litigation and settlements involving other British newspaper groups.
It nevertheless represents a significant setback in his wider campaign to hold parts of the press to account over alleged past privacy abuses.
Any challenge to the ruling would require permission to appeal, while the costs proceedings are set to become the next substantive stage of the dispute.
Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin dismissed all 97 claims after a 46-day trial, ruling that the allegations of unlawful information gathering had not been proved.
The Duke of Sussex brought the action alongside Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes.
They alleged that the publisher had, between 1993 and 2011, obtained private information through unlawful means including phone interception, deception and the use of private investigators.
Associated Newspapers denied the accusations.
The judge found that the claimants could not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the material in question had been sourced unlawfully.
He rejected the proposition that the private nature of information, coupled with the publisher's inability to identify its precise source many years later, was sufficient to prove illegality.
In a number of instances, the court concluded that there remained realistic and lawful routes by which information could have reached journalists.
The ruling is a comprehensive defeat for the group in a case that examined the sourcing of decades-old articles and records.
It does not endorse the allegations against Associated Newspapers; rather, it finds that the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold required to sustain them.
Harry called the judgment a "complete and obvious whitewash".
The publisher described the result as an overwhelming victory and said it vindicated the integrity of its journalists' reporting.
The case carries considerable financial consequences.
Legal costs have been estimated at roughly £40 million to £50 million, although the final allocation has yet to be determined.
Associated Newspapers has indicated that it will seek to recover the costs of defending the proceedings.
The judgment is distinct from Harry's successful litigation and settlements involving other British newspaper groups.
It nevertheless represents a significant setback in his wider campaign to hold parts of the press to account over alleged past privacy abuses.
Any challenge to the ruling would require permission to appeal, while the costs proceedings are set to become the next substantive stage of the dispute.
