Duke of Sussex & Others vs ANL: thread 4

[bluegreygreen]

This is the fourth thread discussing the case Prince Harry (and 6 others) brought against the Daily Mail (Associated Newspapers Limited; ANL) for alleged unlawful information gathering (UIG).

The claimants are: Prince Harry (PH); Doreen Lawrence (DL); Liz Hurley (EH/LH); Elton John (EJ); David Furnish (DF); Simon Hughes (SH); Sadie Frost (SF).
They are represented by David Sherborne (DS).
The defendant (ANL) is represented by Anthony White (AMW).

The threads to date have been thorough discussions of the evidence (so far as we were able to obtain it), with posters giving links and explaining their views. We have mostly kept things civil by avoiding partisan discussions on specific Royal Family members, and trying not to be derailed from the topic of court proceedings.
The case has concluded and we are now awaiting the judgement from Judge Nicklin.

We have also included (when things slowed with the title case) other cases or discussions with a specific theme of free speech/press freedom, particularly when related to those with money or power preventing others from speaking.

One current ongoing case is that involving @GwendolineFairfax8 - some details towards the end of thread 3.
The case is in court this week and is likely to be reported on at the end of the week.

Links to previous threads

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

There was limited direct reporting from court after the celebrities gave evidence; what there we followed on this link
Sky news link to court case

I think so!! However they are always aggressive in tone! , I don’t believe they apeal to even the sympathetic 🤷‍♀️

Yes, very combative which is one of the reasons I rarely engage with that poster. Not really a way to win people over to your cause, is it?

Yes, the Guardian take is here https://archive.is/dH7Wn

It points out how good the legal department at the Mail is, and how well they check their stories, including the fact that one legal director was a former Labour shadow attorney general.

Nope in fact I don’t interact with them at all and have made it clear not to tag me! 🤷‍♀️

Thank you so much for this

From the Times share token article upthread:

Campbell pointed out that when Nicklin rules on costs, Harry and the other claimants are likely to face a 14-day deadline to make a payment on account of up to 90 per cent of the bill

Wow. When he hasn't even paid for his last court losses.

Thank you so much and to everyone else who has saved us the time and cost of subscribing.

The Guardian article is a really interesting read and opinion.

Prince Harry and other celebrities who lost a landmark High Court privacy claim could face moves to pull the plug on their litigation insurance.
The Times understands that a prominent British litigation insurance company had provided policies covering Harry and the others for up to £2.25 million each in legal costs if they lost the claim against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
But there are suggestions that the insurers could invoke a common term in such policies that allows them to back away if the judge makes a punitive award based on his criticisms of the claimants.
Associated has claimed that the litigation’s total costs bill is £50 million and a source close to the litigation said: “The damning nature of the judgment was not anticipated, and some of the claimants are now genuinely concerned that the insurance company will fight the claim.”
It has been confirmed that the lawyers for all the claimants — who included Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Sir Elton John and Liz Hurley — acted on a conditional fee basis, better known as no win, no fee.

Under the terms of that deal, the claimants’ lawyers would only be paid if the legal action settled out of court or was won at trial.
To protect the claimants from a costs award against them if they lost, the lawyers struck an insurance deal, which would have more than covered the court-approved costs that had been determined at pre-trial hearings.

However, experts have speculated that in light of the damning judgment from Mr Justice Nicklin — in which the claimants were sharply criticised for some of their behaviour during the litigation — it is likely that the judge will award what is known as indemnity costs.
If Nicklin does make that punitive award, then the previously set costs budgets would be disapplied and remove the requirement that the publisher’s costs must be “proportionate”.

Paul Dacre, the Mail’s former editor and current chairman of Associated, has said that the total costs bill runs to £50 million.
If the individual claimants were insured to a level of £2.25 million each, collectively they would still fall considerably short of the amount that Associated is likely to claim in costs.

But they could face an even larger bill if the insurance company argues that the terms of the policy were partially or wholly breached by the litigants’ behaviour during the litigation.

Yes, historically they have tended to be pro-Sussex.

This summary I think is good:
The world does not see him on his terms. His demands for special treatment, including police protection for his family while he is in Britain, are unlikely to be met while he is not performing royal duties

Interesting @HoldMyWine. Thank you.

But I still don't understand how they managed to get insurance cover in the first place, given that not a single one of the 6 claimants had anything approaching solid evidence against ANL.

Thank you.
Holy shit, love this bit:

Campbell pointed out that when Nicklin rules on costs, Harry and the other claimants are likely to face a 14-day deadline to make a payment on account of up to 90 per cent of the bill.

Serves them right.
I still haven't read the article about them wanting to settle, surely that was never in their gift! They were bringing the case, 2 choices go to court or walk away. Only ANL could settle and they made it clear from day 1 they were never going to do that.

I think they made the mistake of treating the Mail as though they were a redtop- the Daily Star, NOTW, Sun, Mirror etc, OK the Mail Online has a lot of gossip but they have a much older, campaigning strong journalistic tradition. I am old enough to remember the Daily Mail as a broadsheet until it changed size in the early 70s to appeal to commuters.

They initially had the Burrows statement. That was the plank on which the case rested.

Is there a risk that Harry could be deemed a "vexatious litigant"?

The bar is very high and I don't think Harry has reached it. Yet.

But didn't the insurers rethink when it was withdrawn 3 years ago? Or were they dazzled by celebrities, a prince and Sherborne?

If Sherborne’s team didn’t inform them it was withdrawn, the insurance company could have an out.

What's the saying "don't dish what you can't take"

Harry (and Meghan) have made a career and lifestyle spilling dirt and selling stories on their nearest and dearest. Harry should have known about his own skeletons from the past would come back to haunt him. Don't sue the media only to expect them to treat you with kid gloves.

I don't get it either.

It's not a hypothetical risk like breaking your arm on a skiing holiday. There were only two sides and one had to lose, and lose big. It was obvious from the start that that side was likely to be the claimants.

I reckon if anyone agreed to insure them the premium must have been sky high, and I bet there's a list of T&C as long as your arm. A rep from the insurance company was supposedly in court every single day of the trial, and they'll no doubt be going through proceedings with a fine tooth comb to look for any excuse to pay out. From what I've heard, there's a very good chance they'll find one.

From Charlotte’s article

The mind boggles

On Reddit which is largely American, they think this is implying that Harry is gay or bi! , I have tried to explain that in the U.K. at that time and in that company it means something else! Saying you are feeling fruity , means you are feeling sexy or horny!

I don’t suppose anyone has an idea who the rep was?

🙄 At American ideas about some things.