וואלהדובר צה"ל: ביצענו ירי בסוריה לעבר מחבל שקידם מתווי טרורESPNDodgers' Pages suffers fractured left hand on HBPESPN DeportesManchester United tiene un arranque de temporada para el olvidoPunchVIDEO: Ero-Arike workers beg Nigerians not to boycott brand over owner’s politicsInquirerDPWH eyes modern technology to curb Cordillera landslidesCNN TürkAltında 7 bin lira barajı aşıldı! Şimdi gözler bu tarihteThe Jerusalem PostThe Middle East’s ‘peace architecture’ may be giving rise to an anti-Israel bloc - opinionSky TG24Sindaco di Camponogara: "Contro i femminicidi siamo soli"BellaNaijaA Closer Look at Ayobami Olorunniyi’s “One Church, Many Nations: A Community Through My LensVanguard24 relatives of ISWAP terrorists surrender to troops in BornoRai NewsWest Nile, terzo caso in Abruzzo: si tratta di una 67enne ricoverata a ChietiIl Fatto QuotidianoIl nostro viaggio a bordo del veliero Royal Clipper navigando lungo l’Adriatico: tra tempeste, venti in poppa e meraviglie, dalla Croazia al Montenegro
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Saturday, August 22, 2026

Prince Harry and others ordered to pay initial US$13 million in failed lawsuit

Translate

Prince Harry, Elton John ⁠and other high-profile claimants face paying ⁠millions of dollars out of their own pockets to cover the legal costs of the Daily Mail’s publisher after a judge ruled their failed privacy lawsuits were conducted in an unreasonable way.

Judge Matthew Nicklin’s judgment on costs, ‌which was published on Friday, also ordered an interim payment from the claimants of £9.54 million (US$13 million), due by August 28, towards the legal costs of Associated Newspapers.

Last month, Judge Matthew Nicklin comprehensively rejected the case brought by King Charles’ younger son, singer Elton John and five ⁠other figures, rejecting allegations that the Mail titles ‌had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.

Friday’s judgment ⁠delivered a damaging blow to Harry and the others by ruling that the outstanding amount ‌should be paid on an “indemnity basis”.

This means that as the losing party ‌the ‌prince and the others must pay towards ‌Associated’s costs without the publisher needing to show ⁠these were reasonable and proportionate.

Britain’s Prince Harry reacts as he walks outside the High Court in London in January. Photo: Reuters

Britain’s Prince Harry reacts as he walks outside the High Court in London in January. Photo: Reuters

Explaining his decision, Nicklin was ⁠highly critical of ⁠the way the claimants’ case had been put, including that serious allegations had rested on “speculative and inferential” foundations.

View the original on South China Morning Post

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.