# Costs in Prince Harry's case against Mail are 'manifestly excessive', judges rule

By [SAM GREENHILL, CHIEF REPORTER](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/profile-843/sam-greenhill.html)

**PUBLISHED:** 19:14 EDT, 24 January 2025 | **UPDATED:** 21:46 EDT, 24 January 2025

A legal battle brought by Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence and others against the Mail is costing a ‘manifestly excessive’ amount of money, two judges ruled yesterday.

They said the estimated £38.8 million case costs were ‘outside the range of reasonable’.

Senior Master Cook, who manages court case budgets, said he and trial judge Mr Justice Nicklin ‘had little difficulty concluding that such sums were manifestly excessive’.

They said in a ruling that the allegations were ‘really rather simple’ compared with other cases, such as medical negligence claims, often brought before the High Court.

Slashing both sides’ budgets, the judges said: ‘We have concluded that the sums sought by both sides are clearly outside the range of reasonable and proportionate costs.’

The [Duke of Sussex](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/prince_harry/index.html), Baroness Lawrence – the mother of murdered teenager [Stephen Lawrence](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/stephen-lawrence/index.html) – and five others launched court action in 2022 against Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday. 

It emerged at a recent hearing that Baroness Lawrence launched her legal battle after Harry sent her a text message – which the court heard the [Labour](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/labour/index.html) peer had since ‘lost and possibly deleted’.

The claimants, who also include Sir [Elton John](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/elton-john/index.html) and actress [Sadie Frost](safari-reader://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/sadie-frost/index.html), say they brought their legal action after being told of alleged ‘confessions’ from a private investigator that he had hacked phones, tapped land-lines and bugged cars.

All of the allegations are firmly denied by Associated Newspapers which has described them as ‘lurid’ and ‘simply preposterous’ as well as untrue. 

The private investigator in question also signed a statement saying he had not been instructed by Associated Newspapers to carry out any unlawful activities.

A nine-week trial is due to begin in January 2026 to test the disputed allegations that articles published by the newspapers were the product of ‘unlawful information gathering’.

Judge Cook said the issues at stake were simple and the claimants would either prove or fail to prove that an article was the product of unlawful activity. 

He added: ‘The fact that these claimants are well-known, and the litigation high-profile, does not affect the issues that must be resolved.’

The ruling, coming two days after Prince Harry settled his legal battle with The Sun’s publisher, noted that lawyers for the duke, Baroness Lawrence and the others now had ‘considerable expertise in this type of litigation and were not starting from scratch’, which was one of the reasons their proposed costs were deemed ‘disproportionate’.

Mr Justice Nicklin previously warned the claimants their accusations of phone hacking, burglary and bugging needed to be backed up by ‘admissible evidence’ – or withdrawn.

The Sun settled with Harry after ‘intense’ negotiations to do a deal out of court.

In the Mail’s case, yesterday’s ruling states that while the seven claimants have budgeted £216,000 for out-of-court negotiations known as ‘alternative dispute resolution’, it was ‘not believed’ by Associated Newspapers that this was possible and the newspaper is not budgeting any money for settlement talks.