The Duke of Sussex and other high-profile claimants who lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail face a potential legal bill of millions of pounds. The group, which includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Elizabeth Hurley, sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering, but their claims were dismissed earlier this month by Judge Mr Justice Nicklin after an 11-week trial.
At the High Court on Wednesday, the parties began a two-day hearing to decide who will pay what legal costs for the mammoth trial. In written submissions, lawyers for the Duke of Sussex and the other claimants described the costs incurred by the Daily Mail's publisher - almost £34.5 million as of 9 July - as
eye watering. They claimed that ANL had exceeded its approved costs by over £18.6 million, and added the group was insured to cover some of the publisher's costs.
Nicholas Bacon KC for the claimants told the court the group took out insurance cover in the sum of £16.2 million, and that ANL had
overspent what they'd told us they'd actually spent. The total bill the claimants could face has not been decided, but the court was told the
current level of cover would be insufficient to meet their total costs exposure, possibly to the tune of many millions of pounds.
ANL has argued the claimants should pay back full costs incurred by the publisher and has applied for the costs to be paid on an indemnity basis, a more favourable financial payout. The publisher has argued the claimant's side acted unreasonably during the case, a conduct clause which could trigger indemnity cover.
In written submissions, lawyers for ANL said:
Where claims involve wide-ranging allegations of dishonesty and serious criminal conduct against named individuals, a focused, responsible and proper approach is required as the norm.
The Claimants' conduct of this litigation wholly disregarded these key disciplines. In many cases this was in the face of repeated warnings by the Court as to the proper approach to be taken.
Baroness Lawrence was among the claimants to bring the case against Associated Newspapers.
Lawyers for the claimants said they conducted themselves
honestly and in good faithand argued that an outcome where the claimants had to pay full costs would be
unjustified. They added that it would have a
particularly harsh impact on the claimants who will bear personal liabilityfor cover in excess of their insurance.
They have approached this litigation in good faith, under the burden of decades of intense, intrusive media scrutiny into their private lives.
What happens next in the costs hearing?
The High Court hearing is set to continue for two days as the court decides who should pay what legal costs from the trial. The total bill the claimants could face remains undecided, but the arguments now focus on whether costs should be paid on an ordinary basis or on an indemnity basis.
Why are the costs so high?
The legal costs have become exceptionally large because the case involved an 11-week trial and, according to the claimants' lawyers, almost £34.5 million in costs incurred by ANL as of 9 July. The claimants say ANL's approved costs were exceeded by more than £18.6 million, while ANL says the claimants' conduct justified the financial approach it is seeking.
What are both sides arguing?
The claimants argue they acted honestly and in good faith and that making them pay full costs would be unjustified and particularly harsh, especially for those with personal liability beyond insurance cover. ANL says the claimants acted unreasonably and disregarded the proper approach despite repeated warnings from the court.
Key Facts
- The Duke of Sussex and other claimants lost their High Court privacy case against Associated Newspapers earlier this month.
- The group includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Elizabeth Hurley.
- ANL's costs were almost £34.5 million as of 9 July, according to the claimants' submissions.
- The claimants said they had insurance cover of £16.2 million.
- The High Court began a two-day hearing on Wednesday to decide legal costs.
