Following an 11-week trial, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed every claim. The court’s conclusion was that the claimants had failed to prove that ANL or its journalists had unlawfully obtained information about them. The judgment emphasized that suspicion, even where understandable, was not enough to establish unlawful information gathering.

The allegations included phone hacking, blagging, surveillance and other covert methods. The costs judgment described the claims as weak and speculative and found that the way they were pursued was highly unreasonable.

Why the costs order is unusual

The judge ordered costs on an indemnity basis for the proceedings. In broad terms, that can allow the successful party to recover a greater proportion of its reasonable legal costs than under the ordinary standard basis. The judgment treated the case as exceptional because of the weakness of the claims and the conduct of the litigation.

That does not mean the claimants automatically owe ANL every pound the publisher says it spent. ANL has reported legal costs of about £34.5 million, while reports put the claimants’ after-the-event insurance cover at approximately £16.2 million. The difference has been described as a potential shortfall of more than £18 million.

The court has ordered the initial payment of £9,544,355 by 4 p.m. on 28 August. The ultimate recoverable sum will be determined through a detailed assessment of the costs. The interim order is therefore a payment on account, not a final bill or a fixed cap on liability.

What happens next

The costs dispute is not completely finished. The parties have until 2 October to seek permission to appeal the main trial judgment or the costs ruling.

An application for permission to appeal would not itself reverse the High Court’s decision. Unless an appeal succeeds, the dismissal of the seven claims and the costs order remain in place while the final amount is assessed.

The practical significance

The ruling is a complete first-instance defeat for the seven claimants in this case and a major victory for ANL. The publisher denied the allegations throughout, and the operative legal outcome is the court’s finding that the claims were not proved—not the competing public descriptions of the result by the parties.

For Harry, the decision adds a significant costs consequence to a wider legal campaign involving the British press. Its immediate legal meaning is narrower and clear: his claims against Associated Newspapers failed, the group must make the £9.54 million interim payment, and the final financial exposure remains subject to assessment and any appeal.

Following an 11-week trial, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed every claim. The court’s conclusion was that the claimants had failed to prove that ANL or its journalists had unlawfully obtained information about them. The judgment emphasized that suspicion, even where understandable, was not enough to establish unlawful information gathering.

The allegations included phone hacking, blagging, surveillance and other covert methods. The costs judgment described the claims as weak and speculative and found that the way they were pursued was highly unreasonable.

Why the costs order is unusual

The judge ordered costs on an indemnity basis for the proceedings. In broad terms, that can allow the successful party to recover a greater proportion of its reasonable legal costs than under the ordinary standard basis. The judgment treated the case as exceptional because of the weakness of the claims and the conduct of the litigation.

That does not mean the claimants automatically owe ANL every pound the publisher says it spent. ANL has reported legal costs of about £34.5 million, while reports put the claimants’ after-the-event insurance cover at approximately £16.2 million. The difference has been described as a potential shortfall of more than £18 million.

The court has ordered the initial payment of £9,544,355 by 4 p.m. on 28 August. The ultimate recoverable sum will be determined through a detailed assessment of the costs. The interim order is therefore a payment on account, not a final bill or a fixed cap on liability.

What happens next

The costs dispute is not completely finished. The parties have until 2 October to seek permission to appeal the main trial judgment or the costs ruling.

An application for permission to appeal would not itself reverse the High Court’s decision. Unless an appeal succeeds, the dismissal of the seven claims and the costs order remain in place while the final amount is assessed.

The practical significance

The ruling is a complete first-instance defeat for the seven claimants in this case and a major victory for ANL. The publisher denied the allegations throughout, and the operative legal outcome is the court’s finding that the claims were not proved—not the competing public descriptions of the result by the parties.

For Harry, the decision adds a significant costs consequence to a wider legal campaign involving the British press. Its immediate legal meaning is narrower and clear: his claims against Associated Newspapers failed, the group must make the £9.54 million interim payment, and the final financial exposure remains subject to assessment and any appeal.