Daily Mail seeks $13 million after Prince Harry loses lawsuit

A A
Resize

LONDON – Associated Newspapers sought an interim payment of £10 million ($13.3 million) from Prince Harry and other high-profile claimants on Wednesday after they lost their privacy ​lawsuits against the Daily Mail publisher.

Earlier this month, a judge at ‌London’s High Court comprehensively ruled against Harry, singer Elton John and other high-profile British figures, rejecting allegations that the Mail titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone ​hacking.

The prince, 41, described the ruling as a “complete and obvious whitewash”, ​while Associated said it was an overwhelming victory for its newspaper ⁠and journalists, and “for a free press generally”.

At a hearing on Wednesday to ​determine liability for legal costs, Associated’s lawyer Antony White argued that Harry and ​the other claimants should pay costs on an indemnity basis, under which the losing party must cover the other side’s charges without the need to show they were proportionate.

In a ​scathing attack on the claimants’ case, which he said had been designed to ​create “a banquet of litigation” against Associated, White argued they had made wide-ranging and serious allegations ‌without ⁠supporting evidence.

In written submissions, Associated sought an interim payment of nearly £10 million.

Lawyers for the claimants said in their submissions that Associated had reported incurring “a simply extraordinary £34.5 million” in costs, far exceeding its agreed budget. They offered an interim payment ​of £8 million by ​August 28 and ⁠said the claimants had insurance cover of up to £16 million.

“Of course, the (claimants) accept that their claims have been dismissed and ​it is appropriate that an order for costs on ​the standard ⁠basis follows the event,” the submission said.

“But the further penalty of an indemnity costs basis order is not one which, in all the circumstances, should be imposed.”

In ⁠his ​ruling, Judge Matthew Nicklin said the claimants had ​needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully, but had failed to do ​so, and that suspicion alone was not enough.