The legal costs in Prince Harry’s legal battle with the publisher of the Daily Mail have reached a “substantial” level worth millions of pounds as the case looks set to go to trial.
Two High Court judges have issued a ruling on how legal costs should be divided among the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and five other prominent figures pursuing a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited.
Judge David Cook and Mr Justice Nicklin delivered their judgment on Tuesday regarding the sharing of “common” costs, should the claimants be required to pay any of the publisher’s legal fees.
The case has already accumulated significant expenses, with further costs anticipated as both parties prepare for proceedings scheduled to commence in mid-January.
The legal costs in Prince Harry’s legal battle with the publisher of the Daily Mail have reached a “substantial” level worth millions of pounds as the case looks set to go to trial.
|
GETTY
A preliminary hearing remains on the court calendar for December 18 before the trial gets underway.
The claimant group also comprises David Furnish, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes.
The seven claimants allege that ANL either carried out or commissioned a range of unlawful activities.
These purportedly included employing private investigators to install listening devices in vehicles, obtaining private records through deception, and gaining access to confidential telephone conversations.
Two High Court judges have issued a ruling on how legal costs should be divided among the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and five other prominent figures pursuing a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited.
|
GETTY
ANL has firmly rejected all accusations and continues to defend itself against the legal action.
The publisher has previously characterised the allegations as “simply preposterous”.
The case centres on claims that each individual claimant’s specific allegations serve to reinforce the cases brought by the other members of the group, as well as strengthening the collective action overall.
Both sides are now preparing their cases ahead of the January trial date, with the publisher maintaining its complete denial of any wrongdoing.
The judges determined it was essential to resolve the cost-sharing question before trial proceedings began, given the substantial sums already spent and the significant additional expenditure expected during preparation.
The seven claimants allege that ANL either carried out or commissioned a range of unlawful activities.
|
GETTY
Judge Cook said: “The claimants’ cases depend not merely on them bringing the same central case based on the similar fact and generic cases, but also on each individual claimants’ own specific case being said to cross-support each of the other claimants’ cases and the collective case as a whole.”
He continued: “It is particularly important that this issue is addressed at this point as substantial costs have already been incurred and the parties will soon be incurring more substantial costs in preparation for the trial next year.”
Earlier this year, the court deemed the combined proposed budgets from both parties, which exceeded £38.8 million, to be “manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate”.
Following that ruling, approved spending was capped at roughly £4.1 million for the claimants and approximately £4.5 million for ANL.
Tuesday’s judgment permitted some adjustments to these previously approved budgets for both sides.