The UK High Court has significantly reduced the costs associated with the high-profile case brought by Prince Harry and other prominent figures against Associated Newspapers, including solicitors’ hourly rates of £740 were well outside of guidelines.
The court’s decision, delivered by Senior Master Cook and supported by Mr Justice Nicklin, has added an unexpected twist to this already captivating story of royalty, celebrity, and media intrigue.
The original proposed litigation costs, totaling a staggering £38.8 million, were deemed “manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate” by the court.
The astronomical figure was slashed to more manageable sums: the claimants’ budget was cut from £18.7 million to £4.1 million, while the defendants’ budget was reduced from £19.8 million to £4.4 million.
The court’s rationale for this dramatic reduction was multifaceted. It pointed out that many of the proposed costs were presented as contingencies, and the defendant’s solicitors’ hourly rates were significantly higher than the prevailing guideline rates.
The court noted considerable overlap in the claimants’ cases, with three law firms instructing the same counsel team.
On the basis of these budgets the parties were proposing to spend just over £38.8 million
on this litigation. The Judge and I had little difficulty concluding that such sums were
manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate. Again, without descending into
the detail, it seemed to us both there were some very obvious reasons for this. – High Court Judgment
Interestingly, the judgment highlighted the extensive experience of the legal teams involved.
Many had participated in the Leveson Inquiry and subsequent litigation involving other media groups. As Senior Master Cook wryly observed, “The claimants’ respective legal teams therefore had acquired considerable expertise in this type of litigation and were not starting from scratch”.
The court’s decision to reduce costs extended across various aspects of the litigation, including disclosure, witness statements, trial preparation, and alternative dispute resolution. In a particularly noteworthy example, the disclosure costs sought by both sides were deemed “clearly outside the range of reasonable and proportionate costs”.
This ruling indicates that even in high-profile cases involving well-known personalities, the fundamental principles of proportionality and reasonableness in legal costs still apply.
As the judge said: “The fact that these claimants are well-known, and the litigation high-profile, does not affect the issues that must be resolved”.
While this case against Associated Newspapers continues, it’s worth noting that Prince Harry and former Labour MP Lord Tom Watson recently settled a separate case against News Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sun.
Prince Harry and former Labour MP Lord Tom Watson settled their case against News Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sun, this week with NGN making a ‘full and unequivocal apology’ to the Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson. The case against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, continues.
