The Royals with Roya and Kate - Who will pay for Harry's High Court defeat?

Episode Date: July 29, 2026

Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants lost every claim in their privacy case against Associated Newspapers. Now the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday is seeking almost £10 million upfront towards a £34.5 million legal bill.Kate Mansey and Roya Nikkhah are joined by The Times legal editor Jonathan Ames to examine who could ultimately pay — and whether Harry’s description of the judgment as a “complete and obvious whitewash” could make matters worse.They also discuss the palace’s alarm over his attack on the courts, outgoing courtier Sir Clive Alderton’s role in Harry’s battles with the press, and whether this defeat will finally bring his long-running campaign against the British press to an end.Get in touch: [e-mail]: GettyProducer: Robert WallaceVideo Producer: Eve ChadbournExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaWatch on YouTube.Read more: Plot to destroy the press: the real story of Harry's hacking trial Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hello and welcome to the Royals, the podcast, where we discuss what happens behind palace walls and why it matters. I'm Kate Mansy. And I'm Royne Carr. Who will pay the price for Prince Harry's landmark legal defeat? Well, that's the multi-million pound question we're examining this week as Harry's fight with the press enters its most costly chapter yet. As we record, Associated Newspapers Limited, publishing. of the Daily Mail is seeking to recover legal costs after defeating every claim. And with the legal costs estimated at £50 million, the battle moves from what happened

to who pays for it. So what could this cost battle mean for Harry personally? Could this defeat force him to reconsider his war with the British press? To help us understand the legal battle, we're very pleased to be joined by Jonathan Ames, legal editor of The Times. Jonathan, welcome to the Royals. Thank you. Great to have you here. Thanks for having me. Just the man for a very, very busy week because it's quite a couple of days.

So just to set the scene for anyone who isn't completely across this quite complex legal battle that we hope is coming to an end, there's a lot to talk about and dig into you because it's live again at the moment. Harry's and other claimants battle against Association Newsfeers Limited was basically a mega case with six. claimants, Harry, Elton John, Simon Hughes, Sadie Frost, Liz Hearnley, Baroness, Dorian Lawrence. Allegations against Associated, who published the mail and the mail on Sunday of unawful information gathering, phone hacking, went on for a very long time, bitterly fought. And we got the result a couple of weeks ago that Harry and the other claimants lost on every single count, which was quite mega, wasn't it? It's huge, wasn't it? I think this was another roll of the dice for Harry in his

battle against the press. And in it there were lots of allegations about the journalism of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. But when it came down to it, Justice Nicklin threw it all out. He said that they hadn't proved any evidence and that suspicion was not enough.

Now, as we're recording this now, it was the first day of a two-day cost hearing, which could be as bitter as the battle itself. Who's on the hook for the cost, Jonathan? And talk us through how that's going to work and why it's so important. Well, the way this claim was run by the claimants was their lawyers acted for the claimants, all of them, on a what's generally described as a no-win, no-fee basis, which means if they don't win, the lawyers don't charge a fee.

They didn't win, so the lawyers won't be claiming a fee. But the claimants in English litigation, if you lose, the principle is that loses pay. Loses pay, the other side of your own costs and the other side's cost. Obviously, their own costs, they're not paying because their lawyers have done it on no-win, no-fee, but they are still on the hook to pay associated costs. Part of the process of getting a no-win-no-fee agreement is that the lawyers will generally obtain insurance to cover the eventuality that the claimants lose and that the other side will claim their costs. We understand they've done that in this case.

And it is understood that, and normally in civil litigation, the rules are that the claimants will have to disclose to the other side, A, that they're operating on a no-win fee, and B, that they're insured. And they've done that in this case. And so, in principle, the insurers are on the hook. It's been reported, the Times has reported, Jonathan, that Associated, who defended this claim, in the end, they've been vindicated very vigorously, are going for the jugular. What more do you know about that? Because that sounds quite bitter.

I think the key factor here is there are two ways that costs are determined in civil litigation. called the standard basis and the indemnity basis. The standard basis means that in all litigation, all civil litigation, before the trial itself, there are pretrial hearings where the judge and the two sides will sit in a courtroom and determine what the cost budget should be. So the judge will take a very keen interest in what both sides are proposing to spend on the litigation, because there's been a long history of concern that civil litigation costs are out of control in England. So the judge will sit down with the two. parties and agree a cost budget effectively. And it was done in this case. So if at the end of the case,

the judge decides to award costs to the winning side on the standard basis, then they refer back to that cost budget and they may argue about a few extras on top, but essentially that cost budget drives the process. However, the complicating factor in this case is, as you rightly say, associated seem to be going for the jugular and what associated will be arguing for, at least their lawyers, I think we'll be arguing for today and tomorrow, is for the judge to award on the indemnity basis. And that basically means that the judge will punish the losing side for what the judge determines to have been, for lack of a better word, misbehavior or poor behavior during the litigation. So there's two things happening here. So he could either say the standard basis, like I said, at the front of a case, they will take that figure off the shelf and say that Harry and Coe is what you owe to Associated Newspapers.

Or the judge could say this indemnity aspect and say it's a punitive ruling. Actually, you need to pay more than that. Well, what the indemnity means and the punitive element is that basically the other sides of the winning side in this case associated will be allowed to claim all its costs, all its reasonable costs, even those that weren't agreed during the cost budgeting hearing without digging deep into the moment. to try and justify. They still have to be determined to be reasonable, but the judge will have a lot more leeway in what they claim, and therefore they could claim significantly more than what was budgeted. So what sorts of things are you talking about dinners with lawyers,

top dinner hours? I think that might be stretching it slightly, but the cost rules in civil litigation, there are guideline costs for lawyers that have been set by the court, and they're significantly lower, their hourly rates, are significantly lower than most top lawyers in the city charge, or top lawyers generally charge. So the guideline rates, which would be applicable in the standard cost basis, would be much lower than what the associated lawyers presumably are charging.

But if they are awarded costs on the indemnity basis, that budget more or less goes out the window. And the judge will determine that because the fees that the associated lawyers are charging are significantly higher than the guideline rates, but they are still within a reasonable parameter of what English lawyers charge, they will be considered... The judge takes all of that into account, and it's a lot to take into account. Can I ask another question? Because when Harry found out he lost, he was over in the UK. I was at Chatham House with him on his first engagement, and he found out he'd lost every single claim. They'd lost

every single claim, not even won one, which we know he only wanted one to win one. He thought there'll be a victory. And after his engagement at Chatham House for Invictors, he sat in there with his team and cooked up a statement. And that statement was issued later that day, absolutely blasting. Mr. Justice Nicklin, the judgment, calling it a complete and obvious whitewash. He went for the jugular with the judge and that judgment. Is the judge likely to take that statement into account when making his cost decision? Is he likely to be quite annoyed with Harry? Is that likely to factor into his decision-making when it comes to how the claimants have acted. Because as I reported, that statement had jaws on the floor at the palace. And the fear of that statement was one of the

reasons at the palace and Courtey's didn't want Harry staying at Buckingham Palace when he came in case he issued that statement from the palace. Well, you raise a very important point. And indeed, I think the answer is probably yes. The judge will certainly have that in his mind, among other things. I mean, indeed, not only will he have that statement in mind, but we in Times law, we reported that that when Harry faced some criticism from very senior legal figures about issuing that statement, Harry's spokesperson issued a statement saying that he completely stood by his original line, which, you know, so not only, you know, to use the vernacular, he effectively doubled down. He was given a chance to perhaps, you know, perhaps back away from it or at least, you know, modify it,

but he absolutely said he stood by it. Well, that story was interesting, wasn't it? Because not only were their jaws on the floor at the palace, but around the legal community, because your story actually quoted the chairman of Hacked Off, a press reform group, who's a senior lawyer. And there were some very senior legal figures in that story that you wrote about saying that this is not how you do think.

If you lose a case, you don't start lambasting the judge who's made the decision in the King's Courts, Harry's father's courts, which was a statement that they were so worried about it, in the palace and in legal circles, it seems. Indeed, as you rightly point out, the chairman of hacked off himself, was...

He was hacked off with Harry. I mean, a bit hacked off with Harry, albeit in slightly coded language. But I mean, it was evident that he was not, he was surprised. So that statement that Harry made, is that what you're saying? Is it likely to make it a little bit worse in terms of the constitution? Mr. Justin will likely have that in mind when he's thinking about it. Yes, among other things, I could go very quickly through some of the other potential issues that were, you know, we'll arguably, I mean, obviously we're not in Mr. Justin Hinklin's mind. but one imagines he will look at some of the evidence that was put forward by the claimant's lawyers,

most notably the evidence that hacked off were found in one instance to have tried to manipulate a situation, I don't think that's too strong a word, in which they could avoid the limitation period on one of the claims. And that was the idea that they would republish some of the stories or refer to some of the stories on Graham Johnson's own website. Now, he was someone who was in the pay, essentially, of Harry and Coe to try to help provide legal research. But in the meantime, they were hoping that those stories on his website might get round this issue, that the stories that they were complaining about were historic by republishing them there. Exactly, yeah. And the judge found that in that one instance, that that behaviour was dishonest.

A finding of dishonesty is, you know, it happens in civil litigation, but it's important when it comes to cost. Another issue is the behavior of one of the lawyers, one of the solicitors for the claimants who took a witness statement that was later determined to be untrue. And there was a very firm finding by the judge that the lawyer should have paid more attention to that. There was also various other references, although I'm told in court, I didn't cover the trial, one of my colleagues did, but I'm told that the judge seemed to take a frustrated view, to say the least, that in cross-examination, the claimant's lawyer has brought in new evidence, unpleaded evidence, and that, again, in technical terms of the law, if it's not being pleaded in the statement

and claim, to try and bring in fresh evidence during cross-examination, is not generally seen, not looked upon favorably. And he ticked them off on that in court a few times. I saw him do that. A lot of people since that catastrophic defeat for him and the claimants, which it was, unanimous defeat, not a single claim one, have questioned why Harry and the claimants let it go as far as it did. But of course, we've got to remember that Harry has had some quite notable legal successes in the last few years, hasn't he? Because he mostly won a case against the Mirror Group late in 2023, and he later had settled with News Group, publishers of the Sun and the Times.

So do you think that sort of played into his and his legal team thinking that they might have a better chance here? Certainly. I mean, obviously, it's considered speculation. It's speculation nonetheless. But one imagines that he might have arguably reasonably been advised that there was a possibility that Associated would settle. There was form from other publishers in Fleet Street. Well, interestingly, we understand that they did try to offer for Associated to settle in the run-up to the trial. So Harry and the other claimants went back to Associated Newspapers Limited and said, we'll pull the trial, let's just settle. You write a check now. We'll be on our way.

Indeed. But in fact, Associated said no. And they kept pushing and said, no, we'll see you in court. You've brought the case. Indeed, yes. My understanding of that offer was that it would be drop hands on costs as well. So both sides would bear their own costs and presumably a settlement payment of some type, but it was roundly rejected. But interesting that they went for that option, I expect, that they went to Associated and said, let's settle. Harry could have walked away with a far cheaper situation and a victory, but Associated saying, no, we've done nothing wrong. Well, you know, we're going to viscerously fight those claims. And now it feels like along the way they've been all these sort of costly mistakes,

you know, through the way that perhaps the case was brought through that hot-headed statement that came out quite soon after the judgment. The statement after the judgment, I think, is pretty remarkable. I mean, it's extraordinary. I mean, it was and still is extraordinary. I can't imagine his lawyers had sight of it or would have advised that he had done it. Coming up. In the US, there's a lot more robust criticism of judges.

There's no such thing really as contempt of court. So maybe he's become a bit more. Now, I suppose looking at the cost, let's say that was a costly mistake. We don't know at this stage whether it will be the standard costs they'll have to bear or, like you say, the indemnity, more punitive costs that the judge will decide based on the things that you've mentioned. But when it comes down to it, whatever those costs are going to be, how do they divvy up? How do they divide and decide who is on the hook for what?

because we understand that Baroness Lawrence has been given assurances that she won't personally have to foot any of that legal bill herself. But, you know, you look around at some of those other high-profile claimants, Elton John, Prince Harry. How will that be worked out, Jonathan? Well, I think there's one crucial element here, and that is whether, and we know they're insured, there were suggestions that the insurance company,

in practice across the sector, may have an element in its policy that says if you're found liable for indemnity costs, then the policy is invalid, or the payout will be less than initially agreed. That's possible. I don't know, but we had heard that there were some suggestions that the insurers were worried about indemnity costs, and they may be looking at the policy. But again, that's pretty much speculation. But in principle, the insurers are still on the hook.

But if it is indemnity costs, they will have agreed a certain level of costs in the policy. which one imagines would not go anywhere near what it would be if indemnity costs were ordered. So all the claimants are jointly and terribly liable. That means, you know, they must pay. Either, you know, one of them can pay for all of it. They can all chip in. The court's not going to be too bothered by how they do it, but they will have to pay. And it is likely, but not certain that after this hearing, this cost hearing,

regardless of the basis on which the costs are determined, that the judge will order an interim payment, sort of a down payment on the cost. So, you know, cough up a certain amount now in the interim. Which will be payable within 14, 21 days. Oh, really that soon. I'm a little bit vague on that one point. But within a relatively short period of time,

they would be required to pay an interim payment, yeah. I don't know if we can read anything into this, but I thought it's quite interesting that Sorrel and John has announced a couple of new tour dates. Has he? In Mexico. Isn't he supposed to be in permanent retirement? He is.

Doesn't he done? Many, many final, final tours. Maybe it's time for that residency in Las Vegas again. Well, quite. Yeah, so I don't know what we can read into that, but I did wonder whether that will be part of paying for it. We probably shouldn't read anything into that, but. And we don't know whether, of course,

where the Max Mosley fund, the late Max Mosley, you know, has started a lot of the press campaigning after his own winning his own privacy case, how much is left in the coffers for that, presumably that in part will go to pay some of them. Essentially, yes. I mean, as I say, I don't think the court will be that bothered where the money comes from as long as it's from legitimate sources, which obviously it will be.

But which one or how they cobble the money together will not really trouble the court. They just will want to see the money, you know, the cost pay, well, as will associate. How long do we think this is going to go on for, by the way, this cost herring, Jonathan? Well, it's listed for two days. I mean, there's a possibility it could wrap up today, but they set aside two days. And a judgment is, a ruling is decided, sort of when? Well, what I think, I think we'll probably get a ruling on whether the costs are going to be determined on a standard or indemnity basis as a result of this hearing, probably. It may be reserved, but I think he will probably find that.

There's another possibility he could reserve judgment, but say, look, regardless of which way it goes, I'm going to order an interim payment of X anyway, which needs to be paid within that certain relatively narrow period. But, you know, things will happen fairly quickly now, I think. And then the figure, when will that final figure come? So if it's ordered on a standard basis, well, either way, really, I think. Costs are very complicated in legal matters. And there's a whole infrastructure. There's specialist cost judges. And I expect that ultimately to work out the actual final figure, regardless of which way,

because it will go before what's called a specialist cost judge in conjunction with Nicola. Now, I think one place that's going to have a very keen eye on this decision and this ruling is going to be the palace. Because, of course, all this came to our head a few weeks ago when Harry was in the UK for a week, the mayhem that accompanied that visit, the chaos, Megan pulling out of things, the issue over his security,

which we won't revisit, because we've talked a lot about that in the last few episodes. That statement that Harry issue, which we talked about, is so important for so many reasons. And we've had some news this week. One person in particular is going to be watching that judgment, and that is the King's principal private secretary, Sir Clive Alderton,

who we have heard, this week it's been announced, is going to be stepping down in the next year. Now, there's a lot of history between Harry and Clive Alton. I mean, that's a whole other episode. Watch this space. But we know that Clive, over the years, going back from, you know, when Harry first took on the press, Clive Alton is someone who has always been aligned with his boss, the King, in thinking it was not a very good idea for members of the Royal Family to take on the press.

And if you could, settling was the key thing. We know that he is leaving. We know he was also crucially involved in the decision to not allow Harry to stay at the palace on the day that he was going to get the judgment because they were very worried about him making that statement from palace. And in the end, they were vindicated on that because it ended up being pretty dicey. Now, briefly, Clive Alderton is such an important person at the palace. He's been in the royal house for 20 years. He's been the king and latterly the queen's principal private secretary for 11 years. Harry loathed him

described him as the wasp in his book spare I don't think Harry will be mourning the fact that he's going soon but it is quite interesting that the timing of this announcement and the fact this is going on Yeah I mean it's all coincidental

but nevertheless talk about going for the jugular He went for Sir Glyve in his book He doesn't name him by name but it's very clear to anybody Just names him by wildlife unfamiliar with the palace He talked about the be the fly and the wasp the three courtiers

He really loathed. And Sir Clive was the wasp, the man who would sort of buzz around and there'd be a sting in the tail, but you'd only notice it after he had left. He's also interesting because he was there with Charles right at the beginning of his war with the press. When Harry was summoned, he phoned his father and said, I'm going to be suing the press. And that's when, you know, he started that litigation against the mirror that you talked about. And he was summoned then to a lunch. And he thought he'd be having lunch with his father. and his grandmother and who was there to greet him.

Sir Clive. Sir Clive. He was there at every one of the meetings. So he's always been very close to Charles, his right-hand man, you know, in talking to Charles and advising him throughout this whole process. And to fall out with Sir Clive so spectacularly just seemed like such a bad move on Harry's part because he's so powerful. Yeah.

Legally, Jonathan, when Harry came over to the UK a couple of weeks ago and on that first day when the bitter briefing all started between his team and Buckingham Palace, about whether or not he could stay at Buckingham Palace, he'd missed the deadline. Then we got the background briefing that actually possibly the more important reason was because they were very concerned about the constitutional complexities and the constitutional nervousness about the statement that they thought he might make, which in the end he did.

Now, Clyde was very involved in that. There has always been with the palace and with the king and his courtiers the nervousness around Harry trying to lobby his father on his security battle or making any kind of statement around this because, of course, it's His Majesty's Courts, His Majesty's Judiciary Service. How important is it that the King stays completely out of it and his courtiers like Clive keep him and have kept him completely out of it? I mean, I think absolutely important because for the constitutional monarchy, I mean, yes, the courts are the king, the monarch's courts, but they still need to be seen to be,

independent of both royal and political interference. And I think that was arguably the most shocking thing about Harry's statement was that he was effectively, and I don't think this is too strong, but he was effectively accusing a high court judge, a very respected high court judge, with years of experience in media law, he's a media law barrister before being promoted to the bench, accusing a very experienced media law specialist judge of whitewashing a judgment

which is like it or not Harry has to accept my personal opinion Harry has to accept that in the constitutional monarchy casting aspersions from his position on a high court judge's ruling is a very serious matter and not the first time we've heard him do that

because when he lost his battle with the long running battle with the home office last year over getting his armed protection reinstitution and reinstated here, he gave an interview to the BBC, calling it a good old establishment stitch up. So this is the second time we've heard him basically attack a judicial decision. Are there really repercussions for that sort of behaviour or that sort of language? Well, apart maybe from the cost front.

Apart from the costs. I don't think so off top of my head. I mean, I think there's probably, I mean, you two will know better than I think, but for the reputation of the monarchy and the royal family, I think there may be some wider repercussions because, I mean, maybe, I mean,

I'm speculating here. Maybe it's to do with Harry having been in America for some time. In the US, there's a lot more robust criticism of judges. There's no such thing really as contempt of court, or very, very different approach to contempt of court. So maybe he's,

He's become a bit more Americanized in his approach to the justice system. Again, that's pure speculation. But, you know, I still think that it was a very, it was unprecedented for a member of the royal family to say what he did about a hike. I mean, there's absolutely no suggestion that Nicklin was doing anything. And when you... Other than his job. You know, there's a massive judgment, hugely reasoned and very detailed on every point.

I mean, you may not agree with it, but to say... suggest that it was a whitewash, I think is just extraordinary. The Americanisation of Harry and his litigation. Possibly. Yeah, his litigation kind of efforts. I suppose the question now is, is this Harry's last stand with his judicial kind of campaigning and warrior? I think he's fighting? Do you think there's any comeback from this?

Do you think we'll see Harry waging war against the establishment, as he calls it, or the press? in the British courts in future, Jonathan, or do you think this has been a sobering moment for him to stop and reflect? I think his lawyers, lawyers would advise him to consider very seriously any future action. However, lawyers, you will always find a lawyer. And I'm not making any implication here regarding his current legal team. But there are always lawyers available who will take a punt. Looking to up there for little hours, no doubt.

Well, look, that's so helpful. Thank you very much. Fascinating, Jonathan. Well, that's all from us this week. A huge thank you to Jonathan Ames, legal editor at The Times for joining us in this episode. And a reminder, you can follow our reporting on the outcome of the cossaring

by subscribing to the times.com. If you enjoyed this episode, please like, rate and share it wherever you get your podcast. It really does help others to discover the show. And don't forget, you can watch full episodes as well as Royal News and analysis from across the Times on YouTube.

Just search for the Times Royals channel. But until then, thank you for joining us on The Royals. We'll see you again next week.