Prince Harry Seeks Appeal After Losing Daily Mail Privacy Case With £34.5 Million at Stake

Prince Harry and five other high-profile figures are seeking permission to appeal after losing their privacy lawsuit against the Daily Mail’s publisher, challenging a ruling that could leave them facing up to £34.5 million in legal costs.

The Duke of Sussex, singer Sir Elton John, actor Elizabeth Hurley, filmmaker David Furnish, actress Sadie Frost and Baroness Doreen Lawrence filed applications with the Court of Appeal on November 6, seeking permission to challenge the High Court’s dismissal of their claims and its subsequent indemnity costs order.

A spokesperson for the six claimants said they disagreed with the decisions.

“We are all extremely disappointed with the unprecedented decisions, which we clearly believe were wrong in law and fact,” Sky News quoted the spokesperson as saying.

Former Liberal Democrat deputy leader Sir Simon Hughes, who was among the original seven claimants, is not part of the appeal applications.

Why Prince Harry and Five Others Are Challenging the Ruling

The case was brought against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The claimants alleged that the company unlawfully collected private information about them over several years.

Their allegations included voicemail interception, phone tapping, obtaining confidential information through deception, known as “blagging,” and employing private investigators to gather information about their personal lives.

They claimed the information had been used in newspaper articles.

ANL strongly denied wrongdoing, maintaining that its journalists obtained information from legitimate sources, including friends, press officers, freelance journalists and other media organizations.

Following an 11-week trial in London, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the claims in a judgment delivered on July 7, 2026, finding that the claimants had failed to prove that the publisher unlawfully obtained the information.

The six claimants are now seeking permission to challenge the judgment, arguing that it contains legal and factual errors.

£34.5 Million Legal Costs Add Financial Pressure

The claimants face substantial financial consequences following their defeat.

In August, the High Court ordered them to make an initial payment of £9,544,355 toward ANL’s legal expenses. The judge also ruled that the publisher’s costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis, potentially allowing it to recover a greater proportion of its legal expenses.

ANL has reportedly incurred approximately £34.5 million in legal costs. The figure represents its reported overall costs, not an additional payment already ordered against the claimants.

The initial payment was required ahead of a detailed assessment to determine the final amount recoverable by the publisher. The claimants are challenging the costs ruling alongside the original judgment.

Prince Harry’s Long Battle Against British Newspapers

The lawsuit represents another chapter in Harry’s campaign against sections of the British press. He has repeatedly spoken about media intrusion into his family’s life, particularly following his mother Princess Diana’s death in a car crash in Paris in 1997.

During the trial, Harry testified about the impact of newspaper coverage on his personal life and marriage to Meghan Markle. He previously said the Daily Mail had made Meghan’s life “an absolute misery.”

Harry has also pursued legal action against other British publishers, winning a case against the publisher of the Daily Mirror over phone hacking and reaching a settlement with Rupert Murdoch’s British newspaper group.

Baroness Doreen Lawrence, whose son Stephen Lawrence was murdered in a racist attack in 1993, is also among the six claimants.

What Happens Next?

The Court of Appeal must decide whether to grant permission for the six claimants to challenge the High Court decisions. Filing an application does not automatically guarantee a full appeal hearing.

If permission is granted, the court could examine the legal arguments surrounding the original dismissal and the costs ruling.

Read more