Prince Harry and several other public figures could be required to cover a substantial share of Associated Newspapers' legal expenses after their privacy claims against the Daily Mail publisher failed, London's High Court was told Wednesday.
Earlier this month, a judge at London's High Court comprehensively ruled against King Charles' younger son, singer Elton John and five other British figures, rejecting allegations that the Mail titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.
Associated said it was an overwhelming victory for its newspaper and journalists, and "for a free press generally", while the prince, 41, described the ruling as a "complete and obvious whitewash".
At a hearing on Wednesday to determine how much of the Mail's legal costs the claimants should pay, Associated's lawyer Antony White argued they should do so on an "indemnity basis", under which the losing party must cover the other side's charges without the need to show they were proportionate.
The court heard that Associated had incurred a legal bill of £34.5 million ($45.8 million), while Harry and other claimants only have an insurance policy which covers £16 million.
In a scathing attack on the claimants' case, which he said had been designed to create "a banquet of litigation" against Associated, White argued they had made wide-ranging and serious "egregious" allegations without supporting evidence which had added to their costs.
He also said Harry's statement following the ruling was an abuse of his position and celebrity status.
"It was entirely inappropriate and unreasonable," White said.
Associated said it was seeking an interim payment of £10 million.
Nicholas Bacon, the lawyer for the claimants, said in their submissions that Associated's £34.5 million legal bill was "eye-watering", far exceeding its agreed budget, and there was clearly a shortfall from the level of security they had in place.
He said it had been reported that Associated wanted "to go for the jugular" and teach the claimants a lesson by obtaining indemnity costs.
They have offered an interim payment of £8 million by Aug. 28.
In his ruling rejecting the case, Judge Matthew Nicklin said the claimants had needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully, but had failed to do so, and that suspicion alone was not enough.
In written submissions, the claimants' lawyers also said any application for permission to appeal that decision had been deferred until after Nicklin gave judgment on the costs.
