Lawrence and others -v- Associated Newspapers Limited - comprehensive defeat for the claimants

Seven claimants, including Prince Harry (Duke of Sussex) brought claims against Associated Newspapers Ltd (publishers of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sundays and MailOnline. The case consumed a considerable amount of High Court time including a 46-day trial which took place between 19 January and 31 March 2026.

The claimants alleged misuse of private information and, in one case, breach of confidence arising from unlawful information gathering (UIG).

Misuse of private information is a tort (civil wrong) and is discussed in an article

produced barristers of 5RB Chambers - see Privacy-law—misuse-of-private-information.pdf.  Over recent years there have been several high profile cases including Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers [2004] UKHL 22 and Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5 (16 February 2022 ).

The trial judge (Nicklin J) set out the basic requirements relating to claims in civil cases. The burden lies of each Claimant  to prove the facts necessary to establish each part of his/her claim on the balance of probabilities. 

In deciding where the truth lies, the Court may take account of the inherent probabilities. Whilst the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, the more serious (and inherently less probable) the allegation, the more cogent the evidence required to prove it: In re H (Minors) [1996] AC 563, 586; Three Rivers District Council -v- Bank of England [2003] 2 AC 1 [181]. Accordingly, where the Court is asked to make findings of dishonesty or similar discreditable conduct (including allegations of deliberately false evidence), it is entitled to take account of inherent improbabilities and, in practice, more convincing evidence may be required than would be needed for less inherently improbable conduct: JSC BM Bank -v- Kekhman [2018] EWHC 791 (Comm) [55]

ALL the claims failed. The judgment is at Lawrence and others -v- Associated Newspapers Limited - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary together with explanatory notes.

The parties and background are set out at [2]–[4], and the claims and Associated defence at [5]–[10]. The key milestones in the litigation are set out in Appendix 1. 

The trial required the Court to decide whether the Claimants had proved that particular articles or incidents were the result of UIG. The Judgment explains the evidence relied upon by the parties at [13]–[77], the common themes and recurring evidential issues at [78]–[153], and then considers 57 separate articles and incidents individually at [154] [1446].

Total costs for the case were reported to be in the region of £50 million. How that will be dealt with remains to be seen. It has however been already held that the claimants are jointly liable - Court makes early decision in high-profile claim that claimants will be jointly liable for common costs - Association of Costs Lawyers and see Baroness Lawrence & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Re Costs) [2025] EWHC 3207 (KB) (09 December 2025)

A hearing will take place on 29–30 July 2026 to hear argument on any points of dispute as to the consequential orders to be made following the Judgment.

The decision has been the subject of widespread media reports including:

• Press Gazette, "Prince Harry privacy judgment is victory for Mail"
• The Guardian, “Prince Harry loses lawsuit against Mail publisher over phone-hacking claims“
• BBC, “Prince Harry loses High Court case against Mail publisher“
• The Independent “Duke loses High Court battle against Associated Newspapers”.
• Reuters. “Prince Harry and others lose privacy lawsuit against Daily Mail”