Arizona Tribune - UK court orders Prince Harry, others to pay Daily Mail initial £9.5mn

The High Court said the prince and six other high-profile figures, who last month lost their unlawful information gathering and privacy invasion claims against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), must make the payment within a week.

It comes less than 48 hours after the shock news broke that the Duke of Sussex will be relocating back to Britain from California within weeks with his wife Meghan and their two children.

The claimants in the case -- which include Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost -- accused the Mail of bugging their cars and homes, listening into calls and other privacy breaches. ANL had denied all the allegations.

After an emotional 11-week trial -- during which Harry gave in-person evidence -- judge Matthew Nicklin sided with the publisher in a July 7 ruling, concluding the "claimants failed to prove their pleaded allegations".

After a further two-day hearing over costs, he made Friday's initial costs decision, while again criticising the claimant's case as "speculative and substantially inferential".

"The Court ordered the claimants make an interim payment of £9,544,355" by 4:00 pm (1500 GMT) on August 28," a published summary stated.

The court noted ANL estimates its total costs defending itself had reached about £34.5 million by July 9, which Nicklin said appeared "excessive" and "largely unexplained".

In his latest 44-page decision, he said the figure provoked "real concerns as to whether all of the costs now claimed by Associated were reasonably incurred and are reasonable".

- 'Overwhelming victory' -

However, the ruling noted the High Court had not determined how much of those costs the claimants must ultimately pay.

"The issue before the court was the basis on which costs should be assessed, not the amount recoverable," the summary stated.

"If the amount is not agreed, that question will be determined separately by a costs judge."

Nicklin rejected requests by Harry and the others to pay on a standard basis, instead favouring arguments by ANL that its costs should be repaid on a stricter so-called indemnity basis.

"The Court concluded that the litigation had been pursued in a way that took it 'well outside the norm'," the summary of the ruling said, noting "the gravity of the allegations" among other factors.

The judge's decision is set to hike the share of the costs the seven are liable for.

The court had previously been told there was a shortfall between ANL's total costs and the claimant's insurance cover of a combined £16.2 million.

The summary also noted the court had set a timetable for the claimants to request permission to appeal the July 7 decision, which must be filed by October 2.

In a joint statement following the judge's ruling last month, Harry and campaigner Doreen Lawrence called it "a complete and obvious whitewash".

An ANL spokesperson called Friday's decision "another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism".

"His judgment is a devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives," the statement added.

Simon Hughes, a former MP and another of the seven, said he was "disappointed and surprised" that ANL's recoverable costs had not been limited by the judge.

M.O.Allen--AT