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

Ignore!! Silly question! 😳

There are photos doing the rounds of H licking another man’s nipple .
Of course they may be fake .

Oh I think those photos are real !! , however that article is certainly not proof of anything!

Ah, but they're a self-selecting sample of those who chose to go ahead.

We know they were actively recruiting claimants, son there are at number of sensible people who chose not to proceed.

Back to insurance.

Harry lied. He said he met CG on one weekend and wasn't in contact after finding out what she did.

Turns out he was in contact, and in 2026 was still in contact in order to set up the photo opportunity in the mail (and then to tell the Guardian that the Palace had leaked the meeting)

Insurance is based on assumptions of truth, how can he be covered?

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

I didn't know this either, @binkie163, but wonder if Harry - believing he can never be wrong - will feel inclined to pay at all. He's seen other family members constantly bailed out and will doubtless expect the same, but then I've believed all along that daddy will probably pay for him

Only ANL could settle and they made it clear from day 1 they were never going to do that

True again, but it involved a "no" to something wanted, and it's clear that Harry hasn't yet learned to accept that ... hence see above about whether he'll be minded to pay

Who knows what the terms under which they accepted the risk?! I would have thought that, once an insurance company had accepted the risk, they would not be allowed to withdraw cover. I can't see how cases like this would ever get off the ground in an insurance company was allowed to withdraw cover as they saw fit.

But I am prepared to.be educated if anyone here knows for sure how it works.

I have no idea about litigation insurance, but in general insurance if a material fact comes to light then insurance can be cancelled.

Fe, in house insurance if you said you had never flooded when they found out your insurance would be void. But that is a very different type of insurance.

I am not clear either but I’m assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that’s its sort of similar to car cover 😂 in the sense that insurance is offered against the information you provide.

So if you say your car is garaged overnight but when making a claim it was stolen and it’s clear you were parking it on the road, then your claim will be rejected.

On a related insurance question I wonder if the claim is assessed at an individual level as I think I read the claimants had individual and group insurance.

So I’m wondering if some claimants insurance may pay out if they can demonstrate a consistency of information they gave to the insurer and what was found/presented in court.

You can still live in a house if it is uninsured - the insurance isn't a prerequisite of being able to live in the house*

But if I decide to bring a civil case against the Daily Mail, the lawyers are going to ask how I intend to pay. If I'll be relying on insurance to cover costs if I lose, the insurance becomes an absolute necessity for the case to proceed. And it would not be fair on me or my lawyers for an insurance company to accept the risk, take my premium but then pull out halfway through. And if there was any chance they might, I doubt the lawyers would agree to act for me.

*Leaving aside what your mortgage provider might stipulate, for thevsake of simplicity.

But you still have the house, so you could cover the costs with the sale of the house.

But the insurance must only cover you if you are honest upfront. If the insurance agrees on a set for facts which turn out to be lies then it wouldn't be reasonable for the insurance to pay out

On a much smaller scale I got involved in having to sign an insurance indemnity for a legal claim after a car crash. I had to agree to cooperate with the process and ensure I provided the requisite documentation and sign a statement of truth. Even though I lost, the insurance covered the costs.
I am thinking in this case if the evidence given is false then that makes the policy null and void.

Harry won't see his lies as lies, just 'his' truth. So that should be entertaining. Didn't someone post an article listing all the times he's lied during this trial? Maybe a different thread.

Agreed.

So, in litigation, I'd expect the insurance company to be bound to provide cover for the duration of the trial, once they'd accepted the risk. ( In other words, they wouldn't bevallowed to withdraw cover just because they didn't like the way the case was going.)

But with T&Cs to allow them to refuse a payout, after the verdict, if certain conditions were breached. Like lying on the witness stand.

I have used insurance for a legal civil case although it was for legal proceedings rather than a cost insurance, it was made clear that at any point the policy would be cancelled through fraud, legal malpractice, malicious intent or subject to punitive action plus a long list of other small print.

I do know that there are some nervous people at the moment!