, Elton John and five others have been ordered to pay an initial amount of 9.5 million pounds ($13 million) to the UK publisher Daily Mail newspaper following their failed invasion of privacy case, reported AP. They can be asked to pay an additional amount of 25 million pounds in legal costs of the same case.
What did the court say
On Friday, Justice Matthew Nicklin said in his judgement that the payment to Associated Newspapers Ltd will have to be made by August 28. The payment is at the upper end of expectations. It marks a vindication for the journalists at the and a defeat for the losing claimants in this case.
Who are involved in this case
The list of high-profile claimants in this case, including Prince Harry and , lost their High Court case in London last month, in which they had accused Associated Newspapers of alleged wrongdoing, including the unlawful hacking of phones. Other claimants are Doreen Lawrence, the anti-racism campaigner whose son Stephen was murdered in 1993 while waiting for a bus; Elton John’s husband and film producer David Furnish; actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley; and politician Simon Hughes. Lawrence’s legal costs are said to be covered by the other claimants, as reported by AP.
In comments accompanying his costs ruling, Justice Nicklin said “several features” had influenced his decision, including the “speculative” nature of the claims and the claimants’ failure to “voluntarily” withdraw serious allegations that could no longer be supported. “The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree,” he added.
Associated Newspapers has said it spent more than £34 million in costs during the case. If the publisher seeks to recover the remaining amount and receives the necessary legal approval, Prince Harry and the six other claimants could be asked to pay an additional liability of around £25 million.
The claimants reportedly taken out insurance which covered roughly half that amount, based on the budget estimates initially provided by the lawyers of the Associated Newspapers. Although the judge described the overall costs as “excessive,” he declined to impose a cap on the recoverable amount from the claimants.
The final amount payable could be determined by specialist costs judges if the two sides don’t reach an agreement mutually. David Bailey-Vella, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, commented on the ruling, saying that it “could not have gone much worse” for the claimants.
He added that the claimants would “surely try again before the costs judges to try and show they relied on Associated’s original budget when buying the insurance and so should not have to pay more.”
Hughes, a former Liberal Democrat MP, said he was “disappointed and surprised” that Associated Newspapers’ recoverable costs had not been capped.
Meanwhile, the claimants have not yet publicly commented on the judgement. They have until October 2 to decide whether to appeal.
Controversy explained
The ruling on costs arrived after the claimants’ defeat in the main case after an 11-week trial in London earlier this year.
Associated Newspapers had strongly denied the allegations against it. In his July 7 judgment, Nicklin said there was insufficient evidence to support the 97 claims and found that there was a possibility the disputed reporting had come from legitimate sources.
After the ruling, Associated Newspapers described the judgment as a “devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives”, as quoted by AP.
“The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought,” it said. “That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession.”
The verdict comes days after Harry’s big return to the UK with family.
(with inputs from agency)
