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 have kept my Telegraph subscription going just for this thread :)

I agree, but it is an interesting question about the insurance cover.

I mean I have no idea how that sort of cover works, but it would feel to me possible that there might be clauses to say that if you deliberately misrepresent your case then your cover could be invalidated. I mean insurance companies love a get out clause!

That being the case though, a few of the celebs would be in hot water I’d have thought as Harry wasn’t the only one who made statements which contradicted provable evidence.

Correct again about Harry not being the only one, @elessar, and yes I've no doubt the insurers will have get-out clauses for if something's been misrepresented - after all that's understandable whether it's him or anyone else

I don't dare imagine the howls of victimhood if they refuse to pay though ...

I wonder if the line Happy Birthday America is hinting the judgement will be released 4th July?

Bearing in mind that more than one celebrity's evidence came down to "my friends don't leak", it's hard to see how they can blame Harry. No one seemed to have a very good case, maybe the documentation contained details we didn't hear about?

Thanks @CraftyGin - we appreciated your timely links on the previous threads!

It's an interesting question about the insurance. I think one of our legal posters (I won't tag as the poster has not yet joined this thread), when talking about the ATE insurance that the claimants have, talked about the companies that offer it typically assessing the strength of the case at different stages along the way.

I had assumed that would include seeing the claimants' evidence - but perhaps not? Perhaps only a summary?

I've not read the whole thread but were I wanting to sue in the British courts the last person I would want to be a co-plaintiff is Prince Harry. Following his numerous other cases, especially when he was called a liar in all but the words by a trial judge, have done nothing except fill the coffers of the legal world for whom he must be a dream come true!

Yes, he was shown to have lied in the pre-court documents in his security case.

Not someone to go into battle with unless you were very sure of your ability to win the fight on your own.

The insurance aspect is interesting.

I watched quite a lot of the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial back 2022. Amber Heard was relying on her two insurance companies to cover her court costs and damages. There was an insurance representative in attendance every single day of the trial (six weeks). She was found guilty of defamation to the tune of $10m.

What followed was a long draw out legal wrangling of suing and counter-suing between Heard and her two insurance companies. It finally came to a conclusion in 2024, in the insurance companies favour.

https://riskandinsurance.com/the-depp-heard-saga-continues-insurance-coverage-for-court-costs-is-in-question/

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/breaking-news/amber-heard-issues-countersuit-against-insurer-428632.aspx

I know the above is US related and Heard’s insurance was not ATE, but it’s a universal fact that insurance companies are run for profit, they don’t want to be paying out.

PH costs will be huge if he loses.

The following could be an issue for him with ATE insurance:

Breach of Duty: The claimant fails to act reasonably, hides crucial evidence, or provides false information to their solicitor and the insurer.

That is interesting, and could be very relevant.

Thanks @IAmATorturedPoet.

I think Gwendolinefairfax found out who the insurers were and that it was unlikely they would pay out, partially connected to her court case but also as she furnished both sides with info/evidence that rebutted some of the claims, I think it was timeline. This was months back. If the insurers can prove the claimant lied then they are unlikely to pay up. One of our legal eagles explained the policy terms and it has no wiggle room.

Oh and the rather hammy acting from certain actresses, did cast a light as to why they weren’t more successful!

The constant tears must have been draining

I know I found it draining! 🤣

Was this case covered by any media?

Only for first week of celebrities giving evidence. Press association did intermittent after that and then full reporting summing up.
This thread covered most of it.

Apologies - I meant the case with @GwendolineFairfax8

Her case was paused due to illness of the judge; hopefully to resume in September, if I recall correctly.

There was no reporting at the time, though she was in touch with a reporter who intended to report on completion of the case.

Oh goodness. What a stress. THANKYOU for that update.

Thank you @IAmATorturedPoet for that information about trial insurance and the likely/possible terms of the insurance contract.

Very interesting. The judge’s opinion on the credibility of the evidence claimant by claimant, and his take on the contradictory statements, are going to be pretty crucial.

The revelations about H’s ‘snuggles’ messaging may cost him more than his dignity.

Can H sell all of this to Netflix as a black humor miniseries?

Here hopefully for the verdicts this week, I still like to think Doreen Lawrence won’t be ruined if it goes against them all.

I think I know who the insurers are. If I am right, they are a connected party and would have been willing to pay out. I cannot say unless I am 100% certain.

I have a problem with Leveson 2. There is no need to gag the press any further following Leveson 1 and The News of the World scandal.

No Government Department has so far been able to tell me, using freedom of information requests, how much it cost us - £millions though.

I believe the press is now very careful that its stories are secured by legitimate means, rather than risk costly lawsuits.

A journalist for the Daily Mail was in attendance by video link for my case - which was aborted on the 6th day because the Judge became (visibly) unwell.

He travelled to see me a week later (on the hot Bank Holiday Monday) and spent several hours going through the case as he heard it.

My new trial is in September and he will not report on it until after that - and then only if I give my permission. I am impressed by his integrity.