There are legal defeats and there are legal defeats that produce a 436-page judgment throwing out every single claim, the losing party describing the outcome as a “complete and obvious whitewash,” and a return to the same court three weeks later to argue about who pays the legal costs, which are expected to be substantial given that the case involved Harry, Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and four other claimants, multiple silks on both sides, and several years of litigation against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail.
Justice Nicklin handed down his ruling on July 7, dismissing all claims brought by the group of seven alleging unlawful information-gathering by the Daily Mail’s publisher. The ruling ran to 436 pages, which is the length of judgment that does not leave much room for selective quotation but which Harry and Baroness Lawrence described as a “complete and obvious whitewash” in a joint statement, which is the characterization that arrives when a 436-page ruling goes entirely against you and the entire document is the thing you are characterizing. Elton John was among the claimants. His claims were also dismissed. He has not issued a characterization of the 436 pages.
The costs hearing that began this morning at the High Court in London will address two questions: who pays the legal costs of the failed action, and whether any of the seven claimants intend to appeal the judgment. In English litigation, the losing party typically pays the winning party’s costs, which means the seven claimants who brought and lost the case are potentially liable for the Daily Mail’s legal bills, which have accumulated over years of proceedings, in addition to their own legal costs, which have accumulated over the same period. The hearing is scheduled for two days, which is the amount of time required to argue about costs that neither side is happy about.
Harry has now lost the phone hacking case against News Group Newspapers, which he settled, and this case against Associated Newspapers, which was thrown out. He described both outcomes as evidence of institutional corruption. The institutions have described both outcomes as the legal process functioning correctly. The High Court is hearing the second one’s financial aftermath today.
He lost in 436 pages. He is back arguing about the bill.
When a 436-page judgment throws out every claim and the loser calls it a whitewash and comes back three weeks later to argue about costs, what exactly is the legal strategy?
Sources
GB News: Prince Harry’s failed Daily Mail case returns to High Court for costs hearing
