Prince Harry and fellow claimants must pay millions to Daily Mail after judge rules their doomed hacking case was 'unreasonable to a high degree'

By SAM GREENHILL, THE CHIEF REPORTER Published: 14:23, 21 August 2026 | Updated: 14:29, 21 August 2026 Prince Harry and his fellow claimants must pay millions to the Daily Mail after a judge today ruled their doomed hacking case was pursued in a way that was ‘unreasonable to a high degree’. The Duke of Sussex, Baroness Lawrence, Sir Elton John and the others have seven days to pay the first £9,544,355, the High Court ordered. Mr Justice Nicklin granted a rare ‘indemnity order’ obliging the claimants to bear the brunt of the costs of their disastrous legal action. Such orders are usually only granted in cases where a judge believes there has been bad conduct. He ruled the order was justified because the litigation against the Mail had been ‘pursued in a way that took it well outside the norm’. The judge said: ‘The claims, and the manner in which they were brought, pleaded, pursued, maintained and publicly advanced, involved a combination of circumstances and conduct which took the litigation outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of civil proceedings.’ He added: ‘The cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.’ A spokesman for the Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, said: 'His judgment is a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.' Prince Harry and six other famous names are facing a legal bill of millions over their failed court battle with the publisher of the Daily Mail   The Mail’s publisher spent £34.4million over four years defending innocent journalists against serious criminal accusations. In a landmark ruling on July 7, Mr Justice Nicklin completely exonerated the Mail’s journalists, throwing out in full allegations they hacked, bugged and blagged to get stories. Today’s ruling on the costs of the failed case comes as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex prepare to return to Britain six years after quitting their life in the UK. The judgment means Associated Newspapers is free to seek a much larger proportion of its costs from the case waged by Harry – who once styled his campaign against newspapers as ‘slaying dragons’ – and the other claimants. They also include Sir Elton’s husband David Furnish, model Elizabeth Hurley, actress Sadie Frost and former Lib Dem minister Sir Simon Hughes. It is a costly blow to the seven claimants whose insurance policy only covers them for £16.2million. And it does not include their own legal costs, which are thought likely to be at least £20million, although it is understood their lawyers acted, at least in part, on a ‘no-win, no-fee’ basis. After winning the case, the publisher applied for its legal costs to be paid on the fuller ‘indemnity basis’ because Harry’s side had pursued the high-profile case in a ‘cavalier’ and ‘highly unreasonable and inexcusable’ fashion.  Serious criminal allegations of phone hacking were sprung on wrongly-accused journalists without any foundation, and some aspects were ‘not only unfair’ but ‘in flagrant breach’ of the judge's repeated warnings to the claimants' lawyers, it was said by Associated’s lawyers. Mr Justice Nicklin threw out the case brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Baroness Lawrence who were among seven claimants alleging criminal acts against innocent journalists Baroness Lawrence and Sir Elton John were among the litigants, whose case was roundly torpedoed by the judge Actors Sadie Frost and Elizabeth Hurley both gave evidence in the case Former Lib Dem minister Sir Simon Hughes was among the litigants. He calimed he was never part of a 'campaign' against the Mail - but has yet to withdraw any of his 'heinous' allegations The four-year legal battle waged by Prince Harry and others in numbers...  53 - Months since claimants started their legal action in March 2022 34 - Number of witnesses for claimants 43 - Journalists and executives who were witnesses for publisher 436 - Pages of Mr Justice Nicklin’s ruling completely exonerating Mail 97 - Times the claimants alleged unlawful activity in their pleaded case 0 - Total number of claimants’ allegations upheld by judge £121,000 - Money known to have been paid by claimants’ researchers to people who became witnesses £50m Estimated total costs of the case £16m Insurance cover the claimants took out An indemnity award means that legal costs are considered on a higher basis than the ‘standard’ way of assessing them. Associated does not need to show its costs are ‘proportionate’ and does not need to adhere to a previous budget set by the court. Today Mr Justice Nicklin listed a series of reasons why the claimants deserved to pay higher costs, including the ‘continued pursuit of serious allegations that lacked an adequate evidential foundation’. They also ploughed on with their case despite knowing private investigator Gavin Burrows had withdrawn his cooperation. During the trial, Mr Burrows – their supposed star witness - declared that his supposed ‘confession’ statement was ‘a pack of lies’ written by others and complete with a forgery for his signature. The most serious accusations of criminal conduct against innocent Mail journalists were all based on the claims involving Mr Burrows, who was paid substantial sums of money by the claimants’ lead researcher, the convicted phone hacker Graham Johnson. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled: ‘The Court concluded that Associated’s costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis’. The judge also declined to place a ‘cap’ on the amount that could be claimed. The Mail’s costs will still need to be considered by a specialist costs judge, but today’s ruling means a much larger proportion will be recovered. After comprehensively losing their case last month, the duke and Baroness Lawrence lashed out in an extraordinary public statement that accused the judge of bias and called his ruling ‘a complete and obvious whitewash’. While criticising the way the claimants’ case was run, the judge made the point that he had not found that any of the claimants themselves had acted dishonestly. In another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism, the High Court today ruled that Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Elton John and other claimants would have to pay the Mail’s legal costs on an “indemnity basis” – a rare legal procedure deployed when a case has been pursued in an improper way. The Mail’s legal costs are £35m. Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the way legal teams for Prince Harry and the other claimants ran the case was “unreasonable to a high degree”, and that “allegations of the utmost seriousness were advanced before the evidential foundation for many of them had been established”. His judgment is a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives. From well before the trial started, the claimants’ lawyers knew that their main witness had denied making the preposterous allegations on which the claims were based. Despite this collapse in evidence to support the extremely serious allegations of “abhorrent criminal activity, crimes and terrible and reprehensible covert acts” by the Mail, they were emblazoned in a lurid press release issued on behalf of Baroness Lawrence, Prince Harry and the other claimants, with the exception of Sir Simon Hughes. The allegations were not withdrawn, and were pursued until the bitter end of the trial. This placed a huge burden on the Mail to defend the reputations of its innocent journalists and the paper itself. 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. Of the most profound concern, however, is that Mr Justice Nicklin’s ruling confirms that those behind this action against the Mail pursued the claims as part of “a coordinated media and litigation campaign designed to drag (the Mail) into the spotlight, challenge its position at the Leveson Inquiry, and use legal claims as part of a broader campaign” to resuscitate Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry. This case was a vital element in an insidious strategy by the newspaper-hating zealots of Hacked Off, using fascist, orgy-loving Max Mosley’s millions, and support from Hugh Grant to impose statutory regulation on the press as a whole. In Mr Justice Nicklin’s judgment last month, not a single one of the 97 allegations made against the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday was upheld. We thank Mr Justice Nicklin for the care he has taken over this application, and throughout the litigation. The Mail has worked continuously for the past four and a half years to defend the reputations of its hard-working and honest journalists against smears that date back three decades and would have destroyed their careers. At last month’s two-day hearing to consider costs, Sir Simon appeared to distance himself from his fellow claimants. It was said on his behalf that he did not 'plan to target' Associated Newspapers. But the publisher’s lead barrister, Antony White KC, said Sir Simon had accused it ‘of the most heinous criminal acts’ and had never withdrawn any of his allegations. Mr White said the claimants' individual cases were 'pursued for the most part without any supporting documentary evidence’, adding that the 'scattergun approach of putting serious allegations to some witnesses, without identifying any supporting evidence, was improper and cavalier'. The 'coordinated media attack' on the Mail - codenamed Operation Bluebird - formed part of a political strategy to pressure the Government into holding a second Leveson inquiry into Press standards, he told the court. Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.