Prince Harry’s court battle against UK tabloids comes with a staggering bill after losing the case despite his years-long battle.
“Prince Harry and the six other claimants could collectively face a legal bill of up to around £50 million, approximately $67 million,” New York City-based civil and trial attorney Nicole Brenecki, who has not worked on the case, told Page Six.
“The figure refers to the total costs exposure for all seven claimants and the litigation in its entirety.”
The Duke of Sussex — along with six plaintiffs including Elton John, David Furnish and Elizabeth Hurley — sued Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers, for breach of privacy.
Brenecki said a later hearing will determine “what is in fact recoverable and how liability is apportioned.”
“The case remains one of the most expensive media privacy actions in recent years,” the attorney added.
While Harry won’t be responsible for the entire bill, he is still expected to pay a decent amount.
Royal expert Kinsey Schofield explained to Page Six, “Prince Harry won’t be personally responsible for anything close to that figure. Insurance is expected to absorb at least part of the liability. The problem is that the overall legal bill appears to have exceeded the available insurance cover, meaning someone will have to make up the difference.”
Schofield further noted that the loss “is unlikely to be cheap.”
“This litigation has become eye-wateringly expensive,” she said. “Between the court’s decision, the apportionment of costs, and uncertainty over what insurance will actually pay, this could still end up costing him a substantial sum.
“The final costs will depend on how the judge divides the bill among the seven claimants and how much their insurers ultimately cover. Even so, this is another reminder that litigation isn’t just risky for Harry’s reputation. It can also carry a very real financial price tag!”
A UK High Court judge ruled against Harry and the other claimants, explaining they did not provide sufficient proof the stories were obtained unlawfully.
Harry and claimant Baroness Doreen Lawrence spoke out following the loss in a statement to Page Six that read, “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.
“This judgment represents a complete reversal of the position which previous judges have taken in relation to the hacking claims successfully brought against both News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers (who were represented by, at the time, the judge who made this decision).”
They added, “Generic findings about various private investigators that were held by the courts in these parallel claims to have carried out unlawful activity at the very same time in relation to similar stories and well-known individuals have been wholly ignored.
“It is a complete and obvious whitewash, but sadly not altogether unexpected,” the statement read. “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 statement read before Harry and Lawrence thanked their legal team.
In 2022, Harry accused Associated Newspapers of obtaining personal information about him by using listening devices placed in cars and homes, among other allegations that the publishing company has denied.
A 10-week trial began in January, with Harry claiming he and Markle lived in “absolute misery.”
Page Six previously reported that the couple’s finances are “tight” after parting ways with Netflix in April.
Harry is currently in the UK, where he will reunite with his dad, King Charles III.
However, the trip has kicked off on a rocky note as Markle and their two children — Prince Archie, 7, and Princess Lilibet, 5 — were forced to stay home after being denied taxpayer-funded security.
To add insult to injury, Buckingham Palace also rescinded its offer for Harry to stay there during his solo visit.
Read the full article here
