Prince Harry and Elton John ordered to pay £9.54m costs
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
Prince Harry, Elton John and their co-claimants have been ordered to make an initial payment of £9.54 million ($13 million) towards legal costs after losing their phone-hacking lawsuit against the Daily Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). In a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin went beyond the July judgment that had dismissed the case, sharply criticising how the claimants' legal team had conducted the trial and clearing the way for a far larger final costs bill.
The judge said the case's excessive breadth, its reliance on speculative and unsupported allegations, and the failure to withdraw claims once they were no longer being pursued — including unfounded assertions that ANL executives had lied to the Leveson inquiry into press practices — justified an exceptional costs order. The £9.54 million payment is due by 28 August, with Nicklin indicating the claimants could ultimately be liable for up to £34.5 million ($47 million) once ANL's full costs are assessed at future hearings. The claimants have until 2 October to seek permission to appeal.
- Harry, Elton John and co-claimants must pay £9.54m in interim legal costs.
- Judge criticised their case as overly broad and poorly evidenced.
- Final bill could reach £34.5m; appeal deadline set for 2 October.
New here? Start with this
Prince Harry, Elton John and a group of other well-known figures brought a legal case against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, accusing its journalists of unlawfully obtaining private information, including through phone hacking. The case was one of several efforts by celebrities and public figures in recent years to hold British tabloid publishers to account for alleged intrusive reporting practices. In July, a judge dismissed the claim.
The judge overseeing the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, has since ruled on who should pay the legal costs of the trial, which are often awarded against the losing side in English civil litigation. He found that the way the claimants' case was run, including pursuing broad and, in his view, unsupported allegations, warranted an unusually large costs award against them.
This matters because it determines the financial consequences for Harry, John and their co-claimants of having lost the case, and it may influence how future claims against newspaper publishers over alleged privacy intrusion are brought and argued.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the claimants' position argue that phone-hacking and other unlawful press intrusion caused genuine harm, and that pursuing accountability through the courts serves the public interest even when a case ultimately fails. They contend that an exceptionally large costs order, especially one that could reach £34.5 million, risks deterring future claimants of more modest means from bringing legitimate privacy claims against powerful newspaper groups, effectively insulating the press from scrutiny. From this view, the size of the penalty matters as much as its justification, since it shapes whether ordinary people can ever afford to challenge media conduct in court.
The case against
Those who back the judge's ruling argue that costs orders exist precisely to discourage claimants from running excessively broad, speculative cases that consume enormous court resources and unfairly burden defendants who are ultimately vindicated. They point to the judge's specific findings that the claimants' team advanced unsupported allegations, including claims that executives lied to the Leveson inquiry, and failed to narrow the case as it progressed, as clear evidence of litigation conduct falling short of reasonable standards. On this view, a substantial costs order is a necessary safeguard for defendants and the justice system, ensuring that well-resourced claimants cannot pursue weak or overreaching claims without meaningful consequence.
More coverage
Cybersecurity Entertainment Music Technology
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Billboard as “Elton John & Others Forced to Repay $13M Legal Bill Following Hacking Lawsuit Loss”.