“Prince Harry’s moving back to the UK!”.
And the world became swept up in various debates and news running orders about how much it would cost the UK taxpayer. The conclusion? Possibly nothing.
According to Buckingham Palace and the Prime Minister, their security was a “private matter”.
The rather more ‘public matter’ – the legal costs after losing a High Court case, against the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper, which the Prince had pursued along with six other household names.
The others splitting the bill will be Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, pictured below, the actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, as well as Baroness Doreen Lawrence and the former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes.
The judge presiding over the case determined that, so unfounded were their claims, that they should be responsible for indemnity costs.
High Court judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, has said £9.5m must be paid to Associated Newspapers within the next week, and there will likely be even more costs – yet to be decided – because the court has refused to impose a cap. Insurance would only cover around £16m of the £34.5m being sought.
The decision for it to be paid on an indemnity basis isn’t usual under English law. But the High Court found that the way the case was pursued was out of the ordinary. That the claims were exceptionally broad, lacked evidence, and that they failed to withdraw allegations that couldn’t be maintained.
In this case, the court heard that there was ultimately a failure to accept this wasn’t a repeat of litigation that Harry had won or settled regarding other newspapers.
The Duke of Sussex has dubbed this his life’s work: in 2019 he accepted damages from Splash News, which used a helicopter to take photographs of his home in the Cotswolds.
In 2023, he became the first British royal in over 130 years to testify in court – winning a phone hacking case against Mirror Group Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Sunday People.
Then, in 2025 he settled with News Group Newspapers, which publishes The Sun and used to publish the now defunct News of the World, over intrusion, phone hacking, and unlawful private investigator use.
So, this one that he’s lost against Associated Newspapers is a setback.
At times the court heard this case had been “chaotic”, “speculative” and a “highly alarming approach to a trial” without evidential basis.
In fact, “entirely cooked up” was the way Associated Newspapers’ defence described it, alleging that the net had been cast as wide as possible in the hope of catching as many innocent journalists “up to no good” as possible, who then had to endure trolling as a result.
They also argued it had been driven by researchers and lawyers who then found claimants to front the case, meaning it could be considered “well outside the norm”, and hence further proof that an order to pay indemnity costs would be proportionate.
The lead name on the case was Baroness Lawrence, pictured below, whose son Stephen was murdered in a racist attack in 1993. In recent hearings the defence claimed that she was being used as the face of it to garner public sympathy. It’s thought the other claimants may foot the bill for Baroness Lawrence, given her financial status compared with the several listed millionaires.
In 2012, the Leveson Inquiry, into the ethics of the press, concluded that there had been a systemic culture of misconduct. But Part 2 of the inquiry was cancelled. The defence in this case alleged it was designed with this in mind – with a view to pressure the government into a further inquiry.
Only one of the claimants commented on the judgment today – Sir Simon Hughes said he was “disappointed and surprised” that the court declined to limit the recoverable costs. And that he was taking the time to consider whether to pursue appeals – they have until 2 October to decide that.
Jacqui Hames from Hacked Off, a campaign that pushes for a more accountable press, said the decision in this case didn’t reduce the need for change.
“I think we need to still reflect even a few years later on the behaviour of the press, the fact that they can still behave with impunity and despite what they say about the sales of newspapers they are still setting the tone and still providing the discourse around really important issues in this country… When people are being harassed like the family of Jason Arday – even after his death, he had press on his doorstep – there has to be a way of saying, stop, this has gone too far.”
When Harry et al lost the most recent court case, the Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers, Paul Dacre, delighted in the schadenfreude of it all, saying it should never have gone to court in the first place.
He said: “There is not a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen about his own family: for him to complain about his privacy being invaded takes not just the biscuit but the whole tin.”
Associated Newspapers said that the claims pursued raised “disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession”.
Prince Harry’s legal team had criticised Associated Newspapers for not disclosing the “unprecedented” legal costs so they could get ample insurance, saying it was “naughty and it’s not on”.
But pay them he must.
Regardless of how big a loss it is, it’s very possible that in the bigger picture, Prince Harry will likely approach this case as, ‘you win some, you lose some’.
Similarly, for the Sussexes, pictured below, the noise surrounding their return to the UK will likely be treated like water off a duck’s back.
Speculation around the couple has swirled for the last few days – “Is there some secret reason they are returning to the UK?”. Among the long list of guesswork is possible schooling for their children and acting work for Meghan.
Prince Harry may be coming back to Britain after losing this case.
But “a plague on both their houses” is how one barrister described his fight with Associated Newspapers, “…bashing the hell out of each other and hoping something would stick…”
It seems millions of pounds have.
