Prince Harry, Elton John ordered to pay $13M in privacy case

LONDON (AP) -- Prince Harry and six others, including Elton John, have been ordered to pay an initial 9.5 million pounds ($13 million) to the publisher of Britain's Daily Mail newspaper following their failed invasion of privacy case -- and could face an additional 25 million pounds in legal costs.

In a judgment Friday, Justice Matthew Nicklin said in a written statement that the payment to Associated Newspapers Ltd. will have to be made by Aug. 28. The payment is at the upper end of expectations and marks a vindication for the journalists at the Daily Mail and a defeat for the losing claimants and their lawyers.

You may like Prince Harry, Meghan move back to Britain: Here's what to know

The claimants lost a High Court case in London last month during which they had alleged malpractice, such as the illegal hacking of phones, on the part of Associated Newspapers.

The other high-profile figures behind the case were Doreen Lawrence, the anti-racism activist whose son Stephen was stabbed to death in 1993 as he waited for a bus; Elton John's film producer husband David Furnish; actors Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley; and politician Simon Hughes. Lawrence's costs are expected to be covered by the others.

You may like: Elton John enters elite EGOT ranks with Emmy win

In excoriating comments accompanying his award, Nicklin said 'several features' were important in his decision, including the 'speculative' nature of the claims and the failure of the claimants to 'voluntarily' withdraw serious allegations that could no longer be backed up.

'The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree,' he said.

Claimants face additional 25-million-pound charge

The publisher has said it incurred more than 34 million pounds during the case. Should it pursue the claimants for the remainder of the costs, and get the necessary legal approval to do so, then Harry and the six others will be liable for a further 25 million pounds or so.

The claimants took out insurance for around half of that total, in line with the budget estimates provided at the outset by the lawyers working for Associated Newspapers.

Though the judge said the costs appeared 'excessive,' he said he would not impose a cap that would have limited the claimants' liabilities as it would have been 'too broad brushed, would risk unfairness, and would be vulnerable to the charge that it was arbitrary.'

The amount that will be paid could well be determined in the future by costs judges, specialists who assess and determine financial outcomes in civil litigation when parties cannot agree.

David Bailey-Vella, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said the ruling 'could not have gone much worse' for the claimants.

He said the claimants will 'surely try again before the costs judges to try and show they relied on Associated's original budget when buying the insurance and so should not have to pay more.'

Hughes, a former member of the centrist Liberal Democrats, said he was 'disappointed and surprised' that Associated Newspapers' recoverable costs were not limited.

None of the other claimants have yet commented on the judge's decision. They have until Oct. 2 to decide whether to appeal.

Harry and the rest had failed to even win one of 97 claims

The publisher had strongly denied the claims made during the 11-week trial in London earlier this year. In his July 7 judgment, Nicklin said there had been a shortage of evidence to support the 97 claims and found there was a possibility that the reporting came from legitimate sources.

In a statement following the decision, Associated Newspapers said the judgment is a 'devastating critique of an attempt to destroy a newspaper and the reputations of its journalists, editors and executives.'

'The truth is that these outrageous claims should never have been brought,' it said. 'That they were pursued raises disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession.'

Cost verdict comes days after Harry's bombshell UK return news

The judgment comes two days after it was made public that Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, are moving back to the U.K. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who are no longer working royals, decamped to California more than six years ago but will relocate back later this month to live in a nonroyal residence outside London.

You may like Duchess of Sussex earns Emmy nod for Netflix's 'With Love, Meghan'

Harry's defeat against Associated Newspapers brought an end to a trio of lawsuits accusing tabloid publishers of using unlawful tactics, such as phone hacking or hiring private detectives to dig up dirt on his life.

Harry won a judgment in 2023 that condemned the publishers of the Daily Mirror for 'widespread and habitual' phone hacking. Last year, Rupert Murdoch's flagship U.K. tabloid, The Sun, made an unprecedented apology for intruding on his life for years and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle his privacy invasion lawsuit.

Harry has said his litigation -- in which he broke with royal family tradition to seek relief in the courts -- was a primary source of his falling out with his father, King Charles III, and brother Prince William.

His grudge with the tabloids runs deep and his legal actions are part of his larger quest to reform the news media that he says damaged his relationships and made him 'paranoid beyond belief.'

He blames the press for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris, and for attacks on his wife, Meghan, that led the couple to abandon royal life and move to the United States in 2020.