World · North America · 6 hrs ago
Prince Harry and others seek permission to appeal Daily Mail case
Prince Harry and five other claimants have applied to appeal the dismissal of their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
They accused the publisher and its journalists of using unlawful methods to obtain information for stories.
A High Court judge rejected all 97 allegations after a three-month trial, ruling in July that the journalists’ evidence was credible.
The judge also ordered the claimants to pay the publisher’s legal costs on an indemnity basis, which could amount to as much as £34 million.
The claimants say the rulings are legally and factually flawed, but the grounds for their appeal application have not been made public.
The six applicants include Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and David Furnish; Sir Simon Hughes is not currently seeking to appeal.
They need the Court of Appeal’s permission before they can bring an appeal, and the court has confirmed it received their applications.
Prince Harry and five other claimants have applied for permission to appeal the dismissal of their claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail.
They are also seeking to appeal an order requiring them to pay the publisher’s legal costs on an indemnity basis.
Their solicitor said the claimants consider both decisions legally and factually flawed.
The High Court dismissed all 97 allegations of hacking, bugging and blagging after a three-month trial.
The Court of Appeal must grant permission before any appeal can proceed.
- Who
- Prince Harry and five other original claimants, including Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Sir Elton John, are seeking permission to appeal.
- What
- They have applied to appeal the dismissal of their claims and an order to pay the publisher’s legal costs.
- When
- They filed their applications on 6 November 2026.
- Where
- The applications were filed with the Court of Appeal.
- Why
- Their solicitor said they respectfully disagree with the rulings and consider them legally and factually flawed.
The claimants
The High Court ruling and costs order
Dismissal of claims
The claimants
The claimants say the decisions are legally and factually flawed.
The High Court ruling and costs order
The High Court dismissed all 97 allegations against the publisher.
Costs
The claimants
The claimants are seeking permission to appeal the indemnity costs order.
The High Court ruling and costs order
The judge ordered the claimants to pay the publisher’s costs on an indemnity basis, citing their case as unreasonable to a high degree.
Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the claimants’ allegations and ordered them to pay the publisher’s legal costs on an indemnity basis.
Mr Justice Nicklin issued a 436-page judgment after a three-month trial.
Six of the seven original claimants filed applications with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.
- Allegations dismissed
- 97
- Judgment length
- 436 pages
- Original claimants seeking permission
- 6 of 7
- Potential costs bill
- Up to £34 million
- Application date
- 6 November 2026
3 sources
What people are saying
The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed.