Prince Harry and Co-Claimants Face Potential Multi-Million-Pound Costs Bill After Daily Mail Case Loss

On Wednesday, 29 July 2026, the High Court began a two-day hearing to determine the costs consequences for Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Elizabeth Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes after they lost their case against Associated Newspapers Limited. Harry did not attend in person.

Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the seven claimants had failed to prove their 97 allegations of unlawful information gathering, including claims involving phone hacking, surveillance and the improper acquisition of private information. Associated Newspapers says it had incurred approximately £34.5 million in legal costs by 9 July, although it previously placed the wider cost of the litigation at more than £50 million. Lawyers for the claimants argued that the court should reject ANL’s request for indemnity costs and scrutinise the amount claimed.

The Duke of Sussex and Baroness Doreen Lawrence criticized the judgment as a “complete and obvious whitewash,” while ANL’s former editor-in-chief Paul Dacre called the litigation a “trumped-up action” that should never have reached trial. Beyond the cost dispute, any application for permission to appeal will be considered after the costs issues have been resolved.

The £18 Million Figure Is a Disputed Collective Shortfall, Not Harry’s Personal Bill

The Duke of Sussex and the other high-profile claimants who lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail face a potential costs bill running into millions of pounds.

In written submissions, lawyers for the claimants described the publisher’s costs, which stood at almost £34.5 million as of 9 July, as “eye-watering.” They argued that ANL had exceeded its approved costs budget by more than £18.6 million. Nicholas Bacon KC told the court that six of the seven claimants held combined after-the-event insurance worth £16.2 million.

The Law Society Gazette reported that the claimants described an indemnity costs order as a “very harsh” and “unwarranted” outcome following the dismissal of their claims after an 11-week trial.

The £18 million figure dominating coverage is not a personal bill for Prince Harry. It represents a possible collective shortfall if the court allows ANL to recover its claimed £34.5 million costs in full, after accounting for the £16.2 million in insurance held by six of the seven claimants.

Press Gazette’s report shows how the costs hearing has become entangled with the wider dispute over press regulation. Although the article presents arguments from both sides, its headline foregrounds Associated Newspapers’ allegation that the litigation formed part of a campaign to revive Leveson 2. The claimants, meanwhile, argue that the publisher exceeded its approved costs budget by £18.6 million and allege that the request for indemnity costs is intended to “teach them a lesson.” These remain competing submissions from the parties, not findings made by the court.

The Media Is Blurring the Line Between Claimed Costs and Harry’s Liability

The British media has quickly turned the High Court costs dispute into another story about Prince Harry’s supposed financial difficulties. Jeremy Vine’s programme referred to a possible £18 million legal bill, but that figure does not represent a confirmed personal liability for Harry. Six of the seven claimants hold £16.2 million in insurance, yet Associated Newspapers claims costs of approximately £34.5 million, producing a possible collective shortfall of approximately £18.3 million if ANL’s claimed costs were recovered in full.

The final amount remains unresolved. ANL wants its costs assessed on the indemnity basis, which could allow it to recover a greater proportion of its expenditure, and has requested an interim payment of around £9.9 million. The claimants proposed just over £7.9 million, described the publisher’s spending as “eye-watering” and argued that it exceeded the court-approved budget by approximately £18.6 million.

Mr Justice Nicklin said he would give his decision on the size of an initial payment the group will make to ANL, as well as how the costs will be assessed, in a written ruling next month. The judge described the size of the costs in the claims as “unprecedented” for a High Court media law case.

Press Gazette

A later hearing may determine the overall recoverable amount. The court has not yet established Prince Harry’s individual liability. The original allegations were serious, and Judge Matthew Nicklin concluded that the claimants had not proved them. Accurate reporting must still distinguish between ANL’s claimed expenditure, the six claimants’ insurance cover, a possible collective shortfall, an interim payment and Harry’s eventual personal responsibility. Those figures are not interchangeable.