Six well-known figures, led by the Duke of Sussex, have asked the Court of Appeal to revisit a privacy case they lost against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, a loss that carries a costs bill that could reach £34.5m. The dispute reaches back to old questions about how the press gathers its stories and how much proof the powerful must produce when they accuse it of wrongdoing. Whether the claimants' bid succeeds rests with judges who have not yet decided even to hear it.
Prince Harry and five others seek to appeal loss in privacy case against Mail publisher
Six claimants, one verdict, and a costs bill of up to £34.5m
Mark
So what actually happened on Friday? Nobody has won anything yet.
Mimi
Right. Six of the claimants filed applications asking the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the July ruling and the August costs order. It's a request to be heard, not an appeal being heard.
Mark
Why include the costs order? Isn't the verdict the main thing?
Mimi
The costs are huge. Up to £34.5m jointly, with £9.54m already ordered as an initial payment. And the judge went beyond the costs agreed before trial, which is why the claimants call the decision unprecedented.
Luke
Careful with that word. "Unprecedented" is the claimants' description, from their spokesperson. The judge called the case a rare one. Those aren't the same claim.
Mark
And the £34.5m?
Luke
It's described as the most they could face. The final total was still being calculated, so I wouldn't treat it as a settled bill.
Mimi
The trial itself was long, 11 weeks, with Prince Harry testifying in person. The judge found he hadn't proved that journalists were listening to calls.
Luke
"Hadn't proved" is the finding. The publisher's account of legitimate sourcing was accepted as enough to dismiss the claims, but I'd keep that separate from anything beyond the ruling.
Mark
What about Sir Simon Hughes?
Mimi
He isn't mentioned in the statement. He said earlier he'd consider whether to appeal either judgment or both.
Luke
So we don't know whether he's in. And we don't know whether permission will be granted. That's the honest state of things.
Le Pouls
- Six high-profile claimants have filed Court of Appeal applications after losing their privacy case in full.
- A £9.54m initial costs payment has been ordered, with total exposure reported to reach £34.5m.
- The claimants call the rulings unprecedented and argue they are legally and factually flawed.
- Permission to appeal has not yet been granted, and Sir Simon Hughes has still not said whether he will join.
Six well-known figures, led by the Duke of Sussex, have asked the Court of Appeal to revisit a privacy case they lost against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, a loss that carries a costs bill that could reach £34.5m. The dispute reaches back to old questions about how the press gathers its stories and how much proof the powerful must produce when they accuse it of wrongdoing. Whether the claimants' bid succeeds rests with judges who have not yet decided even to hear it.
On Friday, a spokesperson for six public figures said they had filed applications with the Court of Appeal. The group, which includes the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Baroness Lawrence, lost its High Court case against Associated Newspapers, which accused the publisher of unlawful information gathering. The publisher has always denied this.
The trial ran for eleven weeks in London. In July, Mr Justice Nicklin found that the claimants had not proved their allegations. Prince Harry gave evidence in person and said that details in fourteen articles about him "plainly" showed phone calls had been intercepted, but the judge was not persuaded. The publisher's case rested on testimony from many current and former journalists, who described a pattern of legitimate sourcing from friends and from the loose social circles around their subjects.
The costs ruling in August may matter as much as the verdict. The judge decided this was a rare case in which the claimants should pay well beyond the agreed pre-trial costs, and ordered an initial payment of £9.54m. The claimants now face a joint bill of up to £34.5m.
The appeal would challenge both the dismissal and the costs order. Sir Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat politician who was also part of the action, was not named in the statement. He has said he was disappointed and is still considering whether to appeal. For now, the next step belongs to the Court of Appeal, which must first grant permission.
On Friday, a spokesperson for six public figures announced that applications had been filed with the Court of Appeal. The group lost a High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, and they now want permission to challenge the ruling.
The claimants named in the statement are the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actress Elizabeth Hurley, actress Sadie Frost and the political campaigner Baroness Lawrence. They accused Associated Newspapers Limited of unlawful information gathering. The publisher strongly denied it.
The case was heard over an 11-week trial in London. In July, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the allegations, ruling that the claimants had failed to prove them. Prince Harry gave evidence in person. He told the court that the details in 14 articles about him "plainly" showed journalists were listening in to phone calls, but the judge found he had not proved it.
The publisher's side of the trial rested on testimony from many current and former Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists and executives. They denied the accusations of illegal activity that the claimants' lawyers put to them. Lawyers for the publisher told the court that the journalists had given a "compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles", including information from friends and from the "leaky" social circles around the people being written about. After the verdict, a publisher spokesperson called it an "overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists".
The money is a large part of the story. In August, a month after the main judgment, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that this was a rare case in which the claimants should pay far more than the costs agreed before the trial, under what is known as an indemnity costs order. He ordered an initial payment of £9.54m while the final figure was worked out. The group faces joint legal costs of up to £34.5m. In civil cases the usual convention is that the losing side reimburses the other side's "reasonable" legal fees and also pays its own.
The planned appeal covers both the dismissal of the claims and the costs order. The spokesperson said the claimants "respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed."
The statement made no mention of Sir Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat politician who was also part of the action. The BBC has contacted him to ask whether he is joining the appeal. After the costs ruling he told the BBC he was "disappointed" and would take "the time necessary to consider both the substantive and the costs judgment and whether to pursue appeals against decisions in either judgment or both".
What happens next depends on the Court of Appeal, because the claimants have applied for permission to appeal and have not yet been granted it. Sir Simon Hughes's decision is also still to be confirmed.
Citations marquantes
The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed.— Spokesperson for the claimants
An overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists.— Associated Newspapers spokesperson, after the July ruling
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur BBC News ↗
Crime & Justice