The London court’s two-day hearing for the Daily Mail’s legal costs began today. This is about the Mail’s extremely sketchy “legal victory” in the lawsuit brought by Prince Harry, Elton John, Baroness Lawrence, Sadie Frost and more. The plaintiffs’ legal defeat was announced specifically around Prince Harry’s recent UK visit, and the British press has spent weeks acting as if Harry was the only plaintiff, and that Harry would be the only one on the hook for these legal costs. The numbers thrown out were absurd, with various British commentators suggesting that Harry could be held personally responsible for paying tens of millions of pounds. Well, here are some notes from the hearing:
The Daily Mail’s publisher has demanded an initial £10m payment from the Duke of Sussex and fellow claimants after a High Court judge wholly dismissed their “speculative” £50m privacy claim.
Associated Newspapers Limited criticised the “outrageous” and “unreasonable” conduct of the seven high-profile claimants who had pursued allegations of phone hacking, bugging and blagging against its journalists “to the bitter end” despite a lack of evidence.
The Duke, Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence were among those who sued Associated Newspapers Limited for breach of privacy. However, in an excoriating High Court ruling handed down earlier this month, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all 97 claims against the publisher, stating there was no evidence.
The Duke later issued a statement attacking the judge and calling the 426-page ruling a “complete and obvious whitewash”.
The statement suggested that Prince Harry “knew better than the judge”, the publisher claimed.
Associated Newspapers is now seeking to recoup costs incurred during four years of litigation. The publisher has asked for an initial payment of £9,950,624.37.
The claimants offered almost £8m, which it described as “a generous offer”. However, the publisher has applied for an indemnity order, which would lift a cap on the costs that could be recovered.
Each of the claimants had secured an individual after-the-event (ATE) insurance policy worth £2.35m that would collectively cover Associated’s costs to the tune of £14.1m. But some are said to fear that the insurance company could resist a payout if the judge makes a punitive award based on his criticisms of their behaviour.
At the start of a two-day costs hearing on Wednesday, the publisher told Mr Justice Nicklin that it reserved the right to seek further sums if the court ruled that it was entitled to indemnity costs.
In the Daily Mail’s own coverage of what their lawyers are currently arguing in this court hearing, they say that their own incurred costs came to “around £34 million.” The British media cartel has already worked overtime this month to scream about Harry having to pay big-time for daring to file this lawsuit, daring to lose this lawsuit and daring to publicly call out the judge for what seems like an incredibly shady judgment. I have no idea how this will pan out in the end (I guess we’ll know tomorrow?) but I suspect that the plaintiffs won’t actually have to pay £34 million. I also suspect that the insurance will hold up. When I covered all of the back-and-forth about money a few weeks ago, my guesstimate was that Harry would be out of pocket for, at most, about $10 million. I kind of doubt it will be that much, but again, I have no idea how this will go.
Photos courtesy of Cover Images.
