Prince Harry and others seek to challenge ruling in Daily Mail privacy case

Prince Harry and the five other claimants are asking the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge two decisions by Mr Justice Nicklin. They dispute his dismissal of their claims against Associated Newspapers and his indemnity costs order. The appeal would examine whether those decisions were legally and factually sound.

Their case alleged that Mail journalists and others used unlawful methods to obtain private information. These included voicemail interception, landline tapping and deception, known as blagging. Nicklin ruled that the claimants had not proved any information was obtained unlawfully. He also ordered an initial payment toward the publisher’s costs.

The claimants filed their applications after describing the rulings as unprecedented and flawed. Court staff confirmed the filing. Permission to appeal has not yet been granted, so the original judgment and costs order remain in place for now. A successful appeal could lead to the decisions being reconsidered.

An appeal is a request for a higher court to review a lower court’s decision. The appealing party argues that the earlier court made a legal or factual error. Here, the claimants are seeking permission to challenge Mr Justice Nicklin’s judgment and costs order.

A new trial would normally hear the case again from the beginning, with witnesses and evidence presented afresh. An appeal instead focuses on the existing proceedings, including the judge’s reasoning and the trial record. The article reports that the original trial lasted 11 weeks and produced a 436-page written verdict.

The Court of Appeal must first decide whether the challenge can proceed. If permission is granted, it will consider the alleged flaws rather than automatically retry every allegation. The original ruling says the claimants failed to prove unlawful information-gathering, so that finding is central to the proposed appeal.

The claimants could ultimately have to pay more than £50m in legal costs after losing their case against Associated Newspapers. That figure covers the legal bill described after the judgment, not necessarily a final amount already fixed by the court.

In August, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered them to pay £9,544,355 within seven days. This was an initial contribution toward the publisher’s costs. Further hearings were planned to determine the total sum. The order was made after the claimants’ unsuccessful attempt to prove unlawful methods were used to source stories.

Their appeal challenges the costs order as well as the dismissal of their claims. If the Court of Appeal changes the original rulings, the costs position could also be reconsidered. Until then, the article says the claimants faced the initial payment and a potential overall bill exceeding £50m.

The claimants alleged that information for Mail stories was obtained through unlawful methods. Their barristers said the alleged conduct included voicemail interception, landline tapping and obtaining information by deception. The article identifies that deception as “blagging”.

The allegations covered several groups. They included private investigators, freelance journalists and staff at Associated Newspapers. The claimants argued that these methods helped gather private information used in stories. These allegations formed the central foundation of their legal claims against the publisher.

Associated Newspapers denied the claims and described them as “lurid” and “preposterous”. Its lawyers presented a different explanation for how stories were sourced, pointing to friends, press officers, previous reporting and other news organizations. Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the case because the claimants had not proved that information had been obtained unlawfully.

Mr Justice Nicklin’s reasoning focused on proof. He said a story could not be inferred to have been obtained unlawfully if there was still a legitimate and realistic legal way it might have been sourced. The existence of a suspicious or unexplained story was therefore not enough by itself.

For example, a story might have come from a friend, a press officer, a spokesperson or earlier reporting rather than intercepted communications. The publisher’s lawyers said its journalists had provided a compelling account of legitimate sourcing. That alternative account made it harder to prove that unlawful conduct was the actual source.

This principle mattered because the claimants had to establish unlawful information-gathering, not merely show that it was possible. Nicklin’s 436-page verdict said they had not proved that any information was obtained unlawfully. The claimants disagree and argue that the judgment was legally and factually flawed.

Associated Newspapers argued that its journalists had legitimate ways to obtain information. Its legal team described a “compelling account” of normal sourcing practices. These included conversations with friends and “leaky” social circles, along with information from press officers and spokespeople.

The publisher also pointed to previous reporting, freelance journalists, stories published by other newspapers and material from news agencies. These sources offered lawful explanations for how particular stories could have reached the Mail. That mattered because the judge said an unlawful method could not be inferred when a realistic legal route remained available.

The argument directly answered the claimants’ allegations about interception, tapping and blagging. Associated Newspapers said the claims were “lurid” and “preposterous”. Mr Justice Nicklin accepted that the claimants had not proved unlawful information-gathering, though the claimants are now asking the Court of Appeal to review that conclusion.

A successful appeal would put the original outcome under review. The Court of Appeal could set aside or change Mr Justice Nicklin’s dismissal of the claims and his indemnity costs order. That would remove the immediate finality of those decisions, although it would not automatically prove that the alleged unlawful methods occurred.

The claimants’ case could then be reconsidered under directions from the appellate court. The publisher might have to defend the allegations again or face further proceedings. The article does not state exactly what remedy would follow an overturned judgment, so the next steps would depend on the Court of Appeal’s ruling.

For now, permission to appeal has only been requested. Court staff confirmed that applications were filed, but the article does not say permission has been granted. Until the appeal court decides, the original dismissal stands, and the £9,544,355 initial contribution remains part of the costs dispute.