Prince Harry continues his fight, appealing a court ruling in his legal battle against British tabloids
Prince Harry and five other plaintiffs have requested permission to appeal a ruling that dismissed their lawsuit against the Daily Mail over the alleged unlawful acquisition of private information.
Prince Harry is not ending his legal confrontation with the British press. The Duke of Sussex and five other plaintiffs have approached the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, seeking authorization to challenge a judgment that dismissed their claims against Associated Newspapers Limited—the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
The application, filed this Friday, November 6, also contests a judicial decision ordering the plaintiffs to cover a portion of the publisher’s legal costs—a cost-recovery arrangement that could significantly increase the total amount they are required to pay.
A spokesperson for the group—which also includes singer Elton John—confirmed the filing of the appeals, noting that the plaintiffs disagree with the judge’s rulings, which they contend are both legally and factually incorrect.
This latest move marks another chapter in the ongoing dispute between the younger son of King Charles III and the British media, whom he holds responsible for invading his privacy and contributing to the deterioration of his family life.
Prince Harry appeals ruling in case against the Daily Mail and Associated Newspapers
The original lawsuit involved seven public figures: Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, singer Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, and former British Member of Parliament Simon Hughes.
However, the appeal request announced on November 6 concerns six of them: Harry, Lawrence, John, Furnish, Hurley, and Frost. The plaintiffs accused Associated Newspapers of employing illegal methods to obtain personal information and publish stories about their private lives during the period spanning from the 1990s to 2011.
The practices they alleged included intercepting voicemails, installing devices to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, obtaining information through deception, and hiring private investigators to secure confidential data.
The publisher rejected the accusations, maintaining that its journalists relied on legitimate sources—including acquaintances of the individuals involved, press representatives, freelance contributors, and previously published material from other media outlets.
The legal proceedings lasted 11 weeks in London and featured testimony from the plaintiffs, journalists, and former company executives, including Prince Harry.
Why did the judge dismiss Prince Harry’s lawsuit?
On July 7, 2026, Justice Nicklin, of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, issued a 436-page judgment dismissing the claims brought by the seven plaintiffs.
The judge concluded that the group failed to prove that Associated Newspapers had illegally obtained the information used in the articles in question.
A key aspect of the ruling was that the mere existence of a potential illegal source was not sufficient to prove that the journalists had actually made use of it. The judge emphasized the need to consider the possibility that the information had, in fact, come from legitimate sources.
The decision marked a defeat for Harry, who participated in the hearings in person and testified about the impact that tabloid coverage—according to his account—had on his private life and his relationship with Meghan Markle.
Following the ruling, the Duke of Sussex and Doreen Lawrence publicly challenged the decision. Both described the outcome as a "complete and blatant cover-up," arguing that the court had failed to properly weigh the evidence they presented. Associated Newspapers, for its part, described the outcome as a victory for the Daily Mail, its journalists, and freedom of the press.
Prince Harry’s other battle: a multi-million-pound legal costs order
The controversy did not end with the dismissal of the lawsuit. In August, Justice Nicklin ordered the seven plaintiffs to make an interim payment of £9,544,355 (more than 237 million Mexican pesos) to Associated Newspapers by August 28, as part of the legal costs claimed by the company.
The ruling also established that the publisher’s costs were to be calculated on an "indemnity basis"—a method of assessment that allows for the recovery of a larger proportion of legal expenses than the standard approach.
The final amount still requires further assessment. Associated Newspapers submitted a claim for costs exceeding £34 million (more than 845 million pesos), while the initial sum ordered by the court served as an advance payment rather than a final settlement.
Financial matters are also among the grounds for the new challenge. The six plaintiffs argue that both the dismissal of their claims and the costs order contain legal and factual errors.
The financial dimension of the case is significant for the group, as the amount claimed by the publisher exceeds the insurance coverage that the plaintiffs—according to British press reports—had secured to cover litigation expenses.
