Prince Harry and fellow claimants are seeking to appeal after the High Court demolished their hacking case against the Daily Mail's publisher.
Earlier this year, Mr Justice Nicklin completely exonerated the Mail and its journalists, throwing out every single one of 97 allegations they hacked, bugged and blagged to get stories.
He then ordered the claimants to pay the Mail's legal costs on an 'indemnity' basis – meaning they faced a bill up to £34million – after ruling their 'inadequate' case had been 'unreasonable to a high degree'.
Today the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John and others lodged papers with the Court of Appeal, their solicitor said.
Callum Galbraith stated the group 'respectfully disagree' with both of Mr Justice Nicklin's rulings.
He said: 'We confirm that the claimants have today filed applications with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the judgments of Mr Justice Nicklin in respect of his dismissal of their claims and the indemnity costs order.
'The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed.'
Prince Harry and five other famous names are seeking to appeal after losing their court battle with the publisher of the Daily Mail
Six of the seven original claimants – the others being model Elizabeth Hurley, actress Sadie Frost and Sir Elton's husband David Furnish – have filed applications, said Mr Galbraith. The seventh claimant, former Lib Dem justice minister Sir Simon Hughes, is not currently in the group seeking to appeal.
The grounds for their application are unknown. The group has not served Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Mail, with the papers.
The household names require the permission of the Court of Appeal before they can lodge any actual appeal. The court confirmed it had received their applications.
In his landmark 436-page judgment of July 7, Mr Justice Nicklin accepted the 'honest', 'credible' and 'impressive' testimony of a parade of Mail journalists who gave evidence to explain the legitimate sourcing of their articles.
The emphatic result, after a three-month trial, prompted an extraordinary backlash from defeated Harry and Baroness Lawrence who chose to attack the judge, branding his findings 'a complete and obvious whitewash'.
After their defeat, Harry's side urged the judge to 'cap' the costs, but the judge refused, saying their case had been 'unreasonable to a high degree'. The claimants' camp had known for months before their claims were launched that there were problems with their evidence.
He awarded an 'indemnity order' for the duke's side to pay Associated Newspapers' costs. Such an order is usually only granted in cases where a judge believes there has been bad conduct.
Source link
