Prince Harry and five other prominent figures have filed applications for permission to appeal the judge's verdict dismissing their claims against the Daily Mail's publisher, Associated Newspapers, saying they considered the decisions legally and factually flawed.
The appeal challenges the July ruling by Mr Justice Nicklin, who dismissed the claims after an 11-week trial. The judge found that the claimants had not proved any information had been obtained unlawfully. In a statement on Friday, a spokesperson for Harry and his fellow claimants confirmed they had filed applications for permission to appeal, arguing that the decisions were “legally and factually flawed”.
The group, which includes Doreen Lawrence, Elton John and David Furnish, and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, had alleged that private investigators, freelance journalists and Associated Newspapers staff used unlawful methods including voicemail interception and deception. The publisher's legal team called the allegations “lurid” and “preposterous” and said the newspapers had a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing”.
After the verdict, former Mail editor Paul Dacre said the case was a “conspiracy” to “destroy a paper”. Harry and Lawrence called the verdict a “complete and obvious whitewash”, questioning how justice could have been achieved.
The claimants faced a legal bill of more than £50 million. In August, the judge ordered them to pay nearly £9.5 million within seven days as an initial contribution to the publisher's costs, before further hearings to determine the total sum.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The appeal challenges a significant ruling in a high-profile privacy case that could affect how press sources are legally sourced.
- The outcome may have implications for press regulation and the ability of public figures to sue for privacy breaches.
- The case also involves substantial costs, potentially setting a precedent for costs in privacy litigation.
Background
In July 2026, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed privacy claims brought by Prince Harry and others against Associated Newspapers after an 11-week trial. The judge found the claimants had not proven that journalists used unlawful methods. The claimants sought to appeal that decision.
Key Perspectives
Prince Harry and fellow claimants: Maintain that the judge's verdict was flawed and that the decisions to dismiss the case and order indemnity costs were unprecedented and legally wrong. They have appealed.
Associated Newspapers (Daily Mail publisher): Argued during the trial that the claimants' allegations were "lurid" and "preposterous" and that their journalists sourced stories legitimately.
Paul Dacre, former Mail editor: Said the case was a "conspiracy" orchestrated by press regulation campaigners to "destroy a paper".
What to Watch
- The court of appeal's decision on whether to grant permission to appeal.
- Further hearings on the total costs the claimants must pay.
- Potential impact on future privacy cases and press freedom debates.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedPrince Harry and five other prominent figures have filed applications seeking permission to appeal the Daily Mail ruling.UK news | The Guardian: “Prince Harry and five other prominent figures have launched a legal challenge against a judge’s verdict in their unsuccessful claims against the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers .”
- SupportedThe challenge seeks permission to appeal the judge’s dismissal of claims over alleged unlawful sourcing.UK news | The Guardian: “We confirm that the claimants have today filed applications with the court of appeal for permission to appeal the judgments of Mr Justice Nicklin in respect of his dismissal of their claims and the indemnity costs order.”
- SupportedThe claimants said they considered the decisions legally and factually flawed.UK news | The Guardian: “The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed.”
- SupportedThe appeal challenges a July ruling by Mr Justice Nicklin, who dismissed the claims after an 11-week trial.UK news | The Guardian: “In an unequivocal ruling in July, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed their case, stating that the claimants had not proved any information had been obtained unlawfully. His 436-page written verdict, after an 11-week trial”
- SupportedThe judge found that the claimants had not proved any information was obtained unlawfully.UK news | The Guardian: “Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed their case, stating that the claimants had not proved any information had been obtained unlawfully.”
- SupportedThe group included Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost.UK news | The Guardian: “Harry, Doreen Lawrence, the mother of the murdered black teenager Stephen Lawrence, the singer Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, and the actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost”
- SupportedThe claimants alleged that private investigators, freelance journalists and Associated Newspapers staff used unlawful methods, including voicemail interception and deception.UK news | The Guardian: “Barristers for the claimants had alleged during the trial that private investigators, freelance journalists and staff at Associated Newspapers had carried out acts including voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception”
- SupportedThe publisher’s legal team called the allegations “lurid” and “preposterous”.UK news | The Guardian: “Associated’s legal team described the claims as “lurid” and “preposterous”.”
- SupportedThe publisher’s legal team said the newspapers had a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing”.UK news | The Guardian: “lawyers for the publisher said Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists had provided a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles””
- Partly supportedPaul Dacre said the case was a “conspiracy” to “destroy a paper”.UK news | The Guardian: “After the verdict the former Mail editor Paul Dacre said the case was a “conspiracy” orchestrated by press regulation campaigners to “destroy a paper”.”
- SupportedHarry and Lawrence called the verdict a “complete and obvious whitewash” and questioned how justice could have been achieved.UK news | The Guardian: “Harry and Lawrence said the verdict was a “complete and obvious whitewash”. They added: “When the court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing … then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved.””
- SupportedThe claimants faced a legal bill of more than £50 million; in August they were ordered to pay nearly £9.5 million within seven days as an initial contribution to costs, before further hearings to determine the total.UK news | The Guardian: “faced a legal bill of more than £50m after losing their case”