The cost of the legal battle between claimants – who include Prince Harry – and the publisher of the Daily Mail has been branded “manifestly excessive” by High Court judges. Photo / Getty Images
The cost of the legal battle between claimants – who include Prince Harry – and the publisher of the Daily Mail has been branded “manifestly excessive” by High Court judges. Photo / Getty Images
Solicitors’ hourly rates of £740 ($1619) ‘well outside’ guidelines as Duke, Sir Elton John and other well-known claimants sue Associated Newspapers.
The estimated £38 million ($83m) cost of the legal battle waged between high-profile claimants, including Prince Harry and the publisher of the Daily Mail, has been branded “manifestly excessive” and “disproportionate” by High Court judges.
Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence, mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, and Sir Elton John are among seven high-profile claimants suing Associated Newspapers over the alleged misuse of private information.
A trial has been pencilled in for January next year and is expected to last nine weeks.
Unlike the deal agreed this week between the Duke of Sussex and News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the Sun, there appeared little chance the two sides would reach a settlement, the judges acknowledged.
While NGN has made more than 1300 payouts to prevent such claims reaching trial, Associated does not consider such a deal a possibility, given its “entrenched positions”.
Prince Harry recently won his legal battle against the publisher of the Sun. Photo / Getty Images
It emerged in November that the case was forecast to cost more than £38 million ($83m), with the claimants proposing to spend about £18.7m and the publisher £19.8m.
However, Justice Matthew Nicklin and Judge David Cook “had little difficulty concluding that such sums were manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate”.
In a ruling handed down on Friday, the pair ruled the claimants should spend around £4.1m ($8.97m) and ANL about £4.5m on the case.
They were particularly critical of certain solicitors’ hourly rates, which reached £740 – a figure “well outside” the guidelines.
The claimants have accused Associated of alleged unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records, burglaries to order and recording private phone conversations.
The publisher denies the allegations and has told the court the claims were “lurid” and “simply preposterous”.
The judges noted the claims were “really rather simple” when compared with the various types of litigation that came before the court. Each involves a selection of newspaper articles alleged to have been obtained by unlawful means.
Sir Elton John and David Furnish are among the claimants suing Associated Newspapers. Photo / Getty Images
“This is not a subtle question,” the judges said, pointing out that the claimants – who include Sir Elton’s husband David Furnish, actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley and former Lib Dem MP Sir Simon Hughes – would either win or lose on each one.
They warned celebrities would be treated in the same way as any other litigant. “The fact that these claimants are well known, and the litigation high profile, does not affect the issues that must be resolved,” they said.
‘Reasonable and proportionate’
The ruling warned there was “considerable overlap” between each of the claimants’ cases, with many firms of solicitors instructing the same barristers.
The judges also said both parties had failed to sufficiently take into account the fact many of their lawyers were also involved in the Leveson inquiry, the Duke’s claim against Mirror Group Newspapers that he won in 2023, and his claim against NGN, which ended after five years with a “full and unequivocal apology” on Wednesday, meaning they were not “starting from scratch”.
A costs management hearing allows the court to set “reasonable and proportionate” parameters for the costs of the litigation. Either side can exceed the budget, but would then be unable to recover the full amount if the other party was ordered to pay their costs.
