Prince Harry and Five Claimants Challenge High Court Decisions in Daily Mail Case

Prince Harry is continuing his legal battle against the publisher of the Daily Mail. He and five fellow claimants have asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge two High Court rulings.

The group includes Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost. They filed their applications on 6 November.

The claimants want to challenge the dismissal of their privacy claims. They also dispute a later order on legal costs. In a joint statement, the six said they disagreed with Mr Justice Nicklin’s decisions. They described the rulings as “legally and factually flawed”.

The Court of Appeal has not yet decided whether to grant permission to appeal. For those of us who believe powerful newspapers must face meaningful scrutiny, the decision to keep fighting is welcome. The claimants are asking a higher court to examine the rulings.

What was the case about?

Harry was one of seven public figures who brought claims against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline.

They accused the publisher of unlawful information gathering, including phone hacking and the misuse of private information. ANL denied the allegations.

Following an 11-week trial, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the claims in July. The judge found that the claimants had not proved their allegations. ANL welcomed the decision as a vindication of its journalism.

The six named in the latest statement are now seeking permission to challenge that outcome. Sir Simon Hughes, the seventh original claimant, was not named in their statement.

The legal costs

In August, Nicklin ordered the seven original claimants to pay an initial £9.54 million collectively towards ANL’s legal costs. They later made that payment, according to The Independent. The final amount remains to be determined.

The judge ordered that costs be assessed on an indemnity basis, a ruling that can increase the amount the losing side must pay. He criticised the conduct of the claims; the six applicants now want the Court of Appeal to consider that decision as well.

A wider demand for accountability

This case matters beyond its famous names. Questions about press intrusion, privacy and the power of major media organisations affect anyone who finds their life under a newspaper’s microscope.

Christine Flack, the mother of Caroline Flack, has also campaigned for the second part of the Leveson Inquiry into press practices to go ahead. That inquiry was cancelled, but calls for further scrutiny have not gone away.

We support renewed examination of press accountability, including a second stage of the Leveson Inquiry. The High Court rejected the allegations in this particular case, and that judgment stands unless a higher court changes it. The claimants are entitled to challenge it, and the public is entitled to keep demanding rigorous scrutiny of the press.