Daily Mail seeks $19 million after Harry loses lawsuit
Associated Newspapers is seeking interim payments of Stg10 million (US$19 million) from Prince Harry and other high-profile plaintiffs after losing privacy cases against the Daily Mail publisher.
In July, a judge at London’s High Court handed down a sweeping judgment against Harry, singer Elton John and other British figures, rejecting allegations that the Mail companies were involved in widespread illegal activity such as phone hacking.
The 41-year-old prince described the verdict as a “complete and clear exoneration”, while Associated said it was a landslide victory for his newspaper, its journalists and “the free press in general”.
Associated’s lawyer, Antony White, argued at Wednesday’s hearing that in order to determine liability for legal costs, Harry and the other plaintiffs should pay the costs on an indemnity basis, meaning the losing party should bear the other party’s costs without needing to show that they are proportionate.
In a scathing attack on the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, which he said was designed to create “a parade of lawsuits” against Associated, White argued that they had made sweeping and serious allegations without supporting evidence.
In their written application, Associated requested an interim payment of approximately Stg 10 million.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers said in their submission that Associated had reported it had incurred “extraordinary costs of Stg34.5 million”, far exceeding the agreed budget.
They offered interim payments of Stg 8 million until August 28 and said claimants had insurance cover of up to Stg 16 million.
“Of course, (the claimants) accept that their claims have been rejected and that it is appropriate to make a decision on costs on a standard basis after the fact,” the submission said. The statement was included.
“However, the additional penalty of a decision based on the cost of compensation is not a penalty that should be applied in all cases.”
In his ruling, Judge Matthew Nicklin said the plaintiffs had to prove that the information published about them had been obtained illegally, but that they had failed to do so and that suspicion alone was not enough.
