Prince Harry, Elton John and co-claimants ordered to pay initial £9.5m legal bill after losing case against Daily Mail publisher

Want LBC stories before everyone else? Set us as your Preferred Source on Google

The high-profile figures, also including Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Liz Hurley, and Sir Elton John, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information-gathering.

ANL strongly denied the claims, which were heard at an 11-week trial in London earlier this year, with judge Mr Justice Nicklin dismissing all the cases in a judgment on July 7.

The cases returned to the High Court for a two-day hearing over costs, where the court was told ANL’s total costs were more than £34 million.

In a judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled the group of seven must pay £9,544,355 by August 28 as an initial contribution to the publisher’s costs ahead of further hearings to determine the total sum.

He said: “The claimants and their advisers have been on notice, since the hearing, that this would be the date for payment on account.”

Mr Justice Nicklin also ruled that ANL’s costs should be determined on an indemnity basis, which is more favourable to the publisher in terms of the amount it can recover, aside from where orders had already been made.

The judgment comes after it was made public on Wednesday that Harry and his wife the Duchess of Sussex are moving back to the UK.

The couple decamped to California more than six years ago amid the Megxit crisis, but will relocate back to the UK later this month to live in a non-royal residence outside London.

It follows reports that Doreen Lawrence, the social justice campaigner and mother of Stephen Lawrence, will not foot any of a multimillion-pound bill, according to The Guardian.

ANL, which also publishes the Mail On Sunday, had asked for more than £9.9 million as an interim payment, while lawyers for the claimants, which also includes David Furnish, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes, said the interim payment should be just over £7.9 million.

During a hearing in July, ANL said the group should pay the total costs on the indemnity rather than a standard basis.

However, Nicholas Bacon KC, for the group, said in written submissions that it could be “very significant” if the group of seven had to pay ANL’s costs on this stricter basis and could lead to them being without enough insurance cover.

'Excessive'

Mr Justice Nicklin described the £34 million costs claim from Associated Newspapers Limited as “excessive”.

He declined to impose a cost cap in the case after “careful consideration”, but said Associated’s costs were “striking”, “appear exceptionally high”, and were “largely unexplained”.

The judge said: “I regard a claim for costs in excess of £34 million as, on its face, excessive and as giving rise to real concerns as to whether all of the costs now claimed by Associated were reasonably incurred and are reasonable in amount.”

But he said he had “decided not to impose a ceiling on Associated’s recoverable costs”, as this would “be too broad brushed, would risk unfairness, and would be vulnerable to the charge that it was arbitrary”.