The £50 million phone hacking claim brought by the Duke of Sussex, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and a group of high-profile claimants against the publisher of the Daily Mail has been dismissed in full by the High Court, ending one of the most expensive pieces of media litigation in British legal history.
Mr Justice Nicklin, who presided over a three-month trial in London earlier this year, ruled that every one of the 97 allegations made against Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, failed. The judge accepted that each article complained of had been lawfully sourced.
The claim was brought by seven claimants, including Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish and the actress Elizabeth Hurley, who alleged voicemail interception, landline tapping and other unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators working for the publisher.
In an executive summary of his judgment, published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Mr Justice Nicklin said: “Associated called journalist witnesses who gave lawful explanations for the sourcing of the disputed articles and incidents. The Court accepted their evidence, including their denials of UIG [unlawful information gathering].
“The allegations were serious: they included allegations of dishonesty, unlawful conduct and deliberately false evidence. The more serious and less likely an allegation is, the more convincing the evidence must be before a court can find it proved.”
A costly defeat
For the claimants, the financial consequences could be severe. Associated Newspapers said it would now seek to recover the costs it incurred defending the action, which the publisher put at more than £50 million, a reminder that High Court litigation carries substantial financial risk for whichever side loses. As Business Matters reported when Richard Desmond’s Northern & Shell was hit with a £40m costs bill following its failed National Lottery challenge, the courts have shown an increasing willingness to impose punishing costs orders on unsuccessful litigants.
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers said the ruling was “an overwhelming victory for the Daily Mail and its journalists, and for a free press generally”, adding: “Mr Justice Nicklin today cleared the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, and dismissed every single one of the 97 allegations made by the claimants. In every case, the Judge accepted the honesty of our journalists’ evidence on how they sourced their stories.
“This is a magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism.”
The spokesman described the original allegations, which included claims of bugs being placed in cars and homes and of bank accounts being illicitly accessed, as “lurid” and “preposterous”, and said no credible evidence had ever been presented to support them. The publisher accused the claimants of pursuing “a fishing expedition” in “a politically motivated campaign to muzzle the free press”.
The star witness who wasn’t
Much of the case unravelled around the claimants’ key witness, private investigator Gavin Burrows. Several of the claims were launched on the basis of alleged admissions from Mr Burrows about hacking voicemails, tapping landlines, bugging Hugh Grant’s car and, in Ms Hurley’s case, placing a microphone on her dining room window.
Mr Burrows told the court he had never worked for the Mail and said his “confession” statement had been drafted by legal researchers and was “a pack of lies”, complete with a forged signature. He claimed Baroness Lawrence had been “duped” into joining the case by campaigners who described suing newspapers as a lucrative “gravy train”. When he gave evidence on oath, the claimants were reduced to calling their own star witness a liar. The judge dismissed all of the Burrows allegations.
Prince Harry flew in from California to give evidence lasting just 75 minutes, telling the court his wife’s life had been made “an absolute misery”, although the Duchess of Sussex was not a party to the case. The judge said the Duke’s evidence at times strayed “beyond giving factual evidence into advancing arguments on the issues”, though he accepted it overall, noting that each claimant had “limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute”.
The court also cleared individual journalists. Mail reporter Stephen Wright was found to have given “coherent and plausible” evidence, and an allegation that he had corruptly paid police officers was dismissed. Royal Editor Rebecca English was described as “an impressive and honest witness”, and the judge criticised the claimants’ lawyers for advancing hacking allegations against her that were “entirely unsupported by evidence”.
What it means for the publisher
The outcome removes a significant legal overhang for DMG Media’s parent company, which has spent recent years reshaping its portfolio, buying the i newspaper for £50m and selling its RMS insurance risk business for £1.4bn. Attention now turns to the costs battle, with the publisher confirming it “will look to resolve outstanding issues, including the recovery of the costs we have incurred while defending ourselves against this egregious litigation.”
The judge dismissed all seven claims, ruling that none of the claimants had proven their allegations of unlawful information gathering in his 436-page judgment.
