The Royal Story The Royal Story
Prince Harry has joined several high-profile figures in launching a fresh legal challenge against Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, after their privacy claims were rejected by the High Court.
The Duke of Sussex and his fellow claimants have submitted applications to the Court of Appeal, seeking permission to challenge the judgments handed down in their unsuccessful legal proceedings against the newspaper group.
The latest development follows a major setback in July, when a High Court judge dismissed all 14 of Harry’s claims against the publisher.
The decision prompted a furious response from the Duke, who condemned the outcome as a “complete and obvious whitewash”.
Now, Harry and several other well-known individuals are attempting to overturn the rulings through the appeals process.
In a statement released on Friday, representatives speaking on behalf of Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost confirmed that the group had formally taken the next step in their legal battle.
The spokesperson stated:
“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.
“The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed.”
The statement makes clear that the group continues to dispute both the dismissal of their claims and the accompanying legal costs ruling.
Court officials also confirmed on Friday that applications seeking permission to appeal had been submitted.
The development marks another stage in the long-running dispute between the Duke of Sussex, his fellow claimants and Associated Newspapers, although the Court of Appeal has yet to determine whether their challenge can proceed.
READ MORE: Princess Kate Surprises Royal Fans With a Rare Glimpse of Her Naturally Curly Hair
Following the High Court’s decision, Prince Harry joined Baroness Doreen Lawrence in publicly expressing their disappointment with the outcome of the case.
Baroness Lawrence is the mother of Stephen Lawrence, the Black British teenager who was murdered in a racially motivated attack in southeast London in 1993.
In a strongly worded joint statement issued after the ruling, the Duke of Sussex and Lady Lawrence criticised the court’s decision and questioned whether their pursuit of justice had been successful.
Their statement opened with the words:
“We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”
Harry was among a group of prominent individuals who brought legal action against Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL), alleging that the publisher had engaged in unlawful information-gathering practices.
Other claimants included Sir Elton John, actress Elizabeth Hurley and Baroness Lawrence.
Throughout the proceedings, Associated Newspapers consistently rejected the allegations made against it.
The legal battle also resulted in significant financial consequences for the claimants following the conclusion of the 11-week trial.
At the time of the judgment, reports suggested that the group could face legal costs totalling approximately £50 million.
The following month, the judge ordered the claimants to pay £9,544,355 within seven days as an initial contribution towards the newspaper publisher’s legal expenses.
That payment was required ahead of further hearings intended to establish the final amount owed.
Harry and Baroness Lawrence continued to challenge the reasoning behind the court’s decision in their joint statement, arguing that the dismissal of their claims was difficult to reconcile with the evidence presented during the trial.
Their statement continued:
“The fact that this court has chosen to dismiss them represents an inconsistency which is hard to understand or reconcile with common sense, or the evidence heard in the courtroom itself.
Prince Harry and Baroness Doreen Lawrence continued their criticism of the High Court’s decision, expressing frustration over the dismissal of their claims against Associated Newspapers.
In their joint statement, the pair questioned the court’s interpretation of the evidence and argued that the judgment had failed to deliver the accountability they had sought.
They declared:
“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected. However, the lengths to which the court has gone to exonerate the Mail is as shocking as it is totally unwarranted.
“When the court says there is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, despite the documents showing otherwise, then one does wonder how justice was ever going to be achieved.”
The ruling also drew attention to Prince Harry’s testimony during the trial, with Mr Justice Nicklin examining the Duke’s contributions from the witness box in his extensive 436-page judgment.
Although the judge accepted Harry’s evidence, he observed that the Duke sometimes moved beyond describing events and began presenting arguments about the issues before the court.
Mr Justice Nicklin also noted that Harry had “limited evidence” to offer on the disputed matters at the centre of the case.
Explaining his assessment, the judge wrote:
“In assessing Prince Harry’s evidence overall, it was apparent that he wished the court to understand the personal impact of the matters in issue. At times, this led him beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues…
“Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept. As with each of the claimants, Prince Harry has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.”
The judge’s remarks distinguished between the personal impact Harry described and the factual evidence available to establish the disputed allegations.
While his testimony was accepted, the judgment indicated that his direct knowledge of the contested matters was limited, an important distinction in the court’s assessment of the claims.
