Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and four other high-profile figures are mounting a legal challenge against a High Court judgment that dismissed their privacy claims against Associated Newspapers Limited, the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. According to BBC News, the group filed applications with the Court of Appeal on Friday seeking permission to challenge both the substantive ruling and the subsequent costs order.
The claimants, who also include Sir Elton's husband David Furnish, actress Sadie Frost and political campaigner Baroness Lawrence, face potential joint legal costs of up to £34.5m following the July judgment by Mr Justice Nicklin. Court staff confirmed that the appeal application was lodged on November 6, 2026.
The original 11-week trial in London concluded with the judge dismissing all allegations of unlawful information gathering. The Duke of Sussex had testified in person and claimed that details appearing in 14 articles about him demonstrated that journalists were intercepting his phone calls, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this assertion. Associated Newspapers Limited strongly denied the claims throughout the proceedings, with a company spokesperson describing the judgment as an "overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists."
What are the claimants challenging?
The group is appealing both Mr Justice Nicklin's dismissal of their substantive claims and a subsequent indemnity costs order. In August, a month after his initial judgment, the judge ruled that this was a rare case in which the claimants should pay costs far exceeding the amount agreed before trial. He ordered an initial payment of £9.54m while the final total was calculated. A joint spokesperson for the claimants stated:
"The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed."
The allegations against the publisher included voicemail interception, landline tapping, and obtaining information by deception; the publisher said its journalists used legitimate sources such as press officers, friends, freelancers, and other media. During the trial, many current and former Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists and executives gave evidence denying accusations of illegal activity. Lawyers for the publisher argued that journalists had provided a "compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles," including using information from friends and what they described as "leaky" social circles surrounding the subjects of their reporting.
What is the financial exposure?
The financial stakes are substantial. The claimants' combined insurance cover was reported as £16.2 million, leaving a potential shortfall against Associated Newspapers' estimated £34.5 million costs. In civil cases of this nature, the losing party must reimburse "reasonable" legal fees incurred by the other side while also settling their own legal costs. The initial £9.54m payment was made following the August costs ruling, with the remainder to be determined as the final calculation is completed.
What happened in the original case?
The privacy action represented a significant legal battle spanning several years. In November 2023, a judge rejected the publisher's attempt to stop the claims at an early stage, finding it had not delivered a "knockout blow." This allowed the case to proceed to full trial. The trial itself lasted 11 weeks and heard extensive evidence from both sides. Prince Harry's personal testimony focused on 14 specific articles, which he argued contained details that could only have been obtained through phone interception. However, Mr Justice Nicklin concluded that the prince had not established this claim on the balance of probabilities required in civil litigation.
The statement from the claimants' joint spokesperson made no reference to Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes, who was part of the original action. The BBC subsequently contacted Sir Simon to establish whether he would be joining the appeal. In response to the costs ruling, he told the BBC he was "disappointed" and would take "the time necessary to consider both the substantive and the costs judgment and whether to pursue appeals against decisions in either judgment or both."
What happens next in the appeal process?
A single Court of Appeal judge is expected to decide permission to appeal on written submissions unless a hearing is considered necessary; if permission is granted, a full appeal would be heard by three judges. The appeal process will require the claimants to demonstrate that Mr Justice Nicklin's judgment contained legal or factual errors significant enough to warrant reconsideration by a higher court. The outcome of the permission stage will determine whether the case proceeds to a full appellate hearing.
Key Facts
- Six high-profile figures, including Prince Harry, Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley, are appealing a High Court ruling that dismissed their privacy claims against Associated Newspapers Limited.
- The claimants face potential joint legal costs of up to £34.5m, with an initial payment of £9.54m already made in August 2026.
- The original trial lasted 11 weeks and concluded with the judge finding insufficient evidence that journalists had unlawfully intercepted phone calls or obtained information through illegal means.
- The appeal application was lodged on November 6, 2026, and will first be considered by a single judge on written submissions.
- The claimants' combined insurance cover of £16.2m leaves a significant potential shortfall against the publisher's estimated costs.
