Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants must pay Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) an interim £9.54m towards the Daily Mail publisher’s legal costs within seven days after losing their high court privacy case, according to a ruling handed down on Friday, August 21, 2026, by Mr Justice Nicklin.
The Duke of Sussex, along with co-claimants including musician Elton John, his husband David Furnish, activist Doreen Lawrence, actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley, and former Liberal Democrat minister Simon Hughes, brought the legal challenge alleging unlawful information gathering. ANL strongly denied the claims throughout the proceedings.
The high court battle culminated in an 11-week trial in London earlier this year, after which Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all claims brought by the group. Court documents indicated that ANL’s total legal costs amounted to £34.5m. Lawyers representing the claimants had argued that any interim payment order should be restricted to just over £7.9m. Instead, the judge ordered the £9.54m interim sum to be paid by 4 p.m. on August 28, 2026.
Indemnity Basis Costs and Court Criticism
In his 44-page ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin determined that ANL’s costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis, aside from any orders already issued. Under an indemnity basis, the losing parties are required to contribute toward ANL’s legal bills without the publisher needing to prove that every expense was reasonable and proportionate. This stricter standard is unusual in civil litigation and requires conduct or circumstances outside the norm.
The judge stated that the litigation was not merely a hard-fought dispute where the court ultimately favored one side’s evidence. According to Nicklin, the claims and the manner in which they were pursued, pleaded, and publicly advanced involved a combination of circumstances that pushed the case outside ordinary civil proceedings.
Nicklin cited several reasons for granting costs on the indemnity basis, pointing to the “speculative and substantially inferential character of the claims at their origin,” the “exceptional breadth” of the cases, and the public presentation of serious criminality and impropriety allegations that were not ultimately established. He added that the group’s conduct was unreasonable to a high degree, specifically highlighting the failure to reassess serious allegations when the evidence required it and the continued pursuit of claims that were unsupported or no longer realistically maintainable. The judge ultimately refused a request by the claimants to cap the costs.
Publisher Response and Financial Impact
In a formal statement reported by The Guardian, ANL described the ruling as “a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.” The publisher maintained that despite a collapse in evidence supporting allegations of abhorrent criminal activity and reprehensible covert acts, those claims were pushed to the bitter end of the trial.
“The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought. That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession,” the ANL statement added.
Conversely, Simon Hughes told reporters he was disappointed and surprised that the judge had declined to limit the costs. The ruling does not automatically entitle ANL to recover every penny incurred; any costs deemed unreasonable will be disallowed, and if the parties fail to reach an agreement, a costs judge will assess the final amounts.
The court previously heard that a shortfall exists between ANL’s total costs and the claimants’ combined insurance cover, meaning the high-profile group may face millions in out-of-pocket expenses.
Next Steps and Appeal Deadlines
The legal teams involved have until October 2, 2026, to lodge applications for permission to appeal either the original trial judgment or Friday’s costs ruling.
