\n<\/p>\n
Britain\u2019s Prince \u200bHarry, singer Elton John and other high-profile claimants face paying millions of dollars out of their own pockets to cover \u200cthe legal costs of the Daily Mail\u2019s publisher after a judge ruled their failed privacy lawsuits were conducted in an unreasonable way.<\/strong><\/p>\n Judge Matthew Nicklin\u2019s judgment on costs, which was published on Friday, ordered an interim payment from the claimants of \u00a39.54 million, due by August 28, towards the legal costs of Associated Newspapers.<\/p>\n In a further damaging blow, Nicklin said the \u200badditional costs should be paid on an \u201cindemnity basis\u201d, meaning Associated does not need to show they were reasonable and proportionate.<\/p>\n Last month, Nicklin \u200bcomprehensively rejected the case brought by King Charles\u2019 younger son, John and five other figures, rejecting allegations that the \u2060Mail titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.<\/p>\n The full extent of the payments due to Associated was not announced on \u200bFriday. If it cannot be agreed between the parties, Associated\u2019s costs will be assessed in separate proceedings.<\/p>\n JUDGMENT COMES AS HARRY IS SET TO MOVE BACK TO \u200bUK<\/strong><\/p>\n The ruling comes days after the surprise news that Harry, who stepped down from official duties in 2020, will return with his wife Meghan and their two children to live in Britain from their current home in California.<\/p>\n Nicklin, explaining the decision on costs, was highly critical of the way the claimants\u2019 case had been put, including that serious \u200ballegations had rested on \u201cspeculative and inferential\u201d foundations and had not been withdrawn when they were no longer being pursued.<\/p>\n \u201cIn my judgment, the cumulative effect \u200bof these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree,\u201d Nicklin said.<\/p>\n A spokesman for Associated Newspapers called the ruling \u201canother overwhelming \u200cvictory for \u2060the Mail and its journalism\u201d.<\/p>\n There was no comment from Harry\u2019s spokesperson. In July, Harry called the dismissal of the lawsuit \u201ca complete and obvious whitewash\u201d.<\/p>\n The prince, 41, has long blamed the press for the 1997 Paris car crash that killed his mother, Princess Diana, and compared her treatment to that of his American wife Meghan. Holding back tears in the witness box in January, he said the Daily Mail had made Meghan\u2019s life \u201can absolute misery\u201d.<\/p>\n He had previously won \u200bagainst the publisher of the Daily \u200bMirror tabloid and had settled a \u2060claim with Rupert Murdoch\u2019s British newspaper arm, but the latest ruling is a significant defeat in his battles with the media.<\/p>\n CLAIMANTS\u2019 INSURANCE POLICY FALLS SHORT OF ESTIMATED COSTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The court was told at a hearing in July that \u200bAssociated had incurred a legal bill of \u00a334.5 million ($45.8 million), while Harry and other claimants only had an insurance \u200bpolicy which covered \u00a316 million.<\/p>\n Associated\u2019s \u2060lawyer Antony White argued the claimants had made wide-ranging and serious, \u201cegregious\u201d allegations without supporting evidence which had added to their costs.<\/p>\n He also said Harry\u2019s statement following the ruling was an abuse of his position and celebrity status.<\/p>\n Nicholas Bacon, the lawyer for the claimants, said in their submissions that Associated\u2019s \u00a334.5 million legal bill was \u201ceye-watering\u201d, \u2060far exceeding \u200ban agreed budget.<\/p>\n In his ruling rejecting Harry and the others\u2019 lawsuits following an 11-week trial, \u200bNicklin said the claimants had needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully. He said they had failed to do so and that suspicion alone was not \u200benough.<\/p>\n No decision has yet been made on whether the claimants will appeal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n