Prince Harry has launched what promises to be one of the most high profile legal showdowns of his life, after a High Court judge ruled that key documents in his claim over alleged unlawful information gathering must be 'properly searched.'
The Duke of Sussex, alongside six other figures including Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, as well as Liz Hurley and campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, are taking legal action against the Daily Mail’s publisher, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
At a preliminary hearing last month, Antony White KC, representing ANL, argued that a research team working with Harry and six other claimants likely held crucial documents showing when some individuals first knew they might have a claim.
White also suggested the team was using “camouflage” by publishing articles on the website Byline, allowing Sir Simon Hughes to claim awareness of certain information through those publications.
David Sherborne, representing the seven claimants, dismissed the allegations as “simply untrue” and rejected claims that the team had been “cherry-picking” documents.
He described the court order for a “proper” search as a “nuclear option” that was unnecessary.
But Mr Justice Nicklin sided with the claimants, ruling that they do have legal control over the research team’s documents. In a judgment published Monday, the judge stated:
“My conclusion is that the documents held by members of the research team, including documents that came into their possession prior to the engagement agreement, are within the control of the claimants for the purposes of standard disclosure.
Those documents must be properly searched and such documents that fall within the terms of standard disclosure must be disclosed.”
The judge added that the agreement between the claimants and the research team grants them “unfettered access to the documents that they hold relevant to the litigation against Associated.”
They allege serious misconduct by the publisher including hiring private investigators to place listening devices in cars, “blagging” private records, and tapping phones.
In its defence, ANL says the claims are “lurid” and “simply preposterous.”
Amid these serious allegations, the spotlight isn’t just on Harry, the case also drags in journalists and editors from the publisher, with around 70 names reportedly named in the court papers.