Prince Harry and co-plaintiffs face potential millions in legal costs after privacy lawsuit loss

The original lawsuit, brought alongside figures such as the actress Elizabeth Hurley, the filmmaker Sadie Frost, the campaigner Doreen Lawrence and the legal commentator Simon Hughes, accused ANL titles of unlawful information gathering and breaches of privacy. The claimants alleged that journalists at the newspapers had used illegal methods, including in some cases the hiring of private investigators, to obtain personal information about public figures.

Background of the lawsuit

Prince Harry, who now lives in the United States, has pursued a series of media-related legal actions since stepping back from royal duties. In earlier proceedings he has argued that tabloid reporting caused him lasting harm; the Palace has not commented on the current costs application.

Elton John, one of the most prominent co-plaintiffs, joined the action as a long-standing critic of intrusive press behaviour. His legal team has previously argued that the singer's private life was repeatedly invaded by journalists working for ANL publications.

A spokesperson for ANL said after the judgment that the publisher had been vindicated and that the claimants' case had been speculative and overreaching. The claimants' lawyers have indicated that they will contest the scale of the costs being sought, arguing that some elements of the case involved issues of public interest that justified the litigation.

How UK courts assess costs

Under English civil procedure, the general rule is that the losing party pays the winner's costs, though judges have discretion to reduce the amount or to deny certain heads of expense. The court will now assess the bill submitted by ANL before deciding how much, if any, of the claimed sum should be paid.

Legal observers say the assessment stage could itself take months, particularly if the claimants challenge individual items in the costs schedule. Any reduction in the headline figure would depend on how the judge weighs the conduct of both sides during the litigation.

For the claimants, the financial exposure comes on top of their own legal fees, which were not covered in full by either side's costs order. Several of the plaintiffs had already said publicly that they were willing to bear significant personal cost to pursue the case.

Reactions from both sides

ANL's titles include the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday, which have denied wrongdoing throughout the proceedings. The publisher has consistently argued that its journalism was in the public interest and that the claimants had failed to produce credible evidence of illegal activity.

The Court of Appeal earlier ruled against the group on a key preliminary point, a decision that ultimately led to the case being discontinued. That ruling is the basis for ANL's argument that the claimants should now meet the costs of the trial proceedings.

In a brief statement, a representative for the claimants said the group was ‘disappointed by the court's earlier ruling and is considering its options with respect to the costs application.’ The court is expected to set a timetable for the costs assessment in the coming weeks.