Judge Orders Interim Payment

Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants have been ordered to pay an initial £9.54m (US$13 million) in legal costs to Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, following their failed privacy lawsuit. The interim payment, ordered by Justice Matthew Nicklin in a judgment published on Friday, must be made by 28 August.

The order stems from the High Court case in which the claimants—including Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sir Simon Hughes, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence—alleged unlawful information-gathering by Associated Newspapers. Last month, Justice Nicklin dismissed all claims, and Friday's ruling on costs delivers another blow to the claimants.

The judge ordered that costs be paid on an indemnity basis, which is more favorable to the publisher as it does not need to prove the costs were reasonable. According to reports, the judge cited the 'speculative and inferential' nature of allegations and the failure to voluntarily withdraw serious claims that could not be substantiated, describing the conduct as 'unreasonable to a high degree'.

The judge also said it was 'regrettable' for the Duke of Sussex to describe his earlier judgment as a 'complete and obvious whitewash'.

The Financial Burden

Associated Newspapers incurred legal costs exceeding £34 million, a figure Justice Nicklin described as 'excessive' on its face. The publisher is entitled to seek up to £ mark that amount under the court order, which means the claimants could face an additional bill of some £25 million beyond the initial payment.

The claimants had insurance coverage of up to £16.2 million for the publisher's costs, but the full amount could leave them personally liable for around £18 million, as suggested by reports.

Between payment demands, Friday's ruling ordered the interim payment of £9.54m, which is at the upper end of expectations. The newspaper publisher had sought more than £9.9 million, while the claimants' lawyers argued for just over £7.9 million.

Reactions and Responses

A spokesperson for Associated Newspapers issued a statement calling the ruling 'another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism.' The publisher also described the earlier judgment as 'a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper.'

In contrast, Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence issued a joint statement criticizing the ruling as a 'complete and obvious whitewash.' Sir Simon Hughes expressed his disappointment with the judgment.

The case is part of Prince Harry's broader legal battle against Britain's tabloid press, which has included lawsuits over phone hacking and privacy violations. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex this week confirmed they are planning to return to the UK with their children, a decision that was made public just days before the ruling.

The claimants have until 2 October to appeal, but the judge has noted that the failure to win any of the 97 claims they brought means the chances of overturning the costs order might be slim.

Perspectives

Associated Newspapers: The publisher views the ruling as 'another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism' and a vindication against what it calls 'outrageous claims'.

Claimants (Prince Harry and Doreen Lawrence): They believe the case and the ruling are a 'complete and obvious whitewash,' indicating their continued disagreement with the court's handling of their allegations.

Judge Matthew Nicklin: The fundamental judge emphasized that the claimants' suit was run in an 'unreasonable' and 'speculative' manner, which justified the costs award without capping the amount. }