Prince Harry and five others seek permission to appeal Daily Mail privacy ruling

Prince Harry and five other claimants have applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge a High Court judgment that dismissed their claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The group comprises Harry, singer Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, and Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence. They alleged that Associated Newspapers and people working for its publications had used unlawful methods to obtain information, including voicemail interception, landline tapping and deception to secure private details.

Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the claims in July after an 11-week trial. His 436-page ruling said the claimants had not proved that information had been obtained unlawfully. The judge said an inference of illegal activity could not be drawn where a legitimate and realistic legal route remained for obtaining the material.

A spokesperson for the claimants said applications had been filed challenging both the dismissal of the claims and a subsequent indemnity costs order. The group said it considered the decisions “legally and factually flawed”. Court staff confirmed that the applications had been filed, but the reports do not say whether permission to appeal has been granted.

Associated Newspapers strongly denied the allegations. Its lawyers told the trial that journalists had provided what they described as a compelling account of legitimate sourcing, including information from friends, press officers, spokespeople, freelance journalists, previous reporting and social circles connected to the people being covered. The publisher described the claims as unfounded, while the claimants disputed the outcome.

After the judgment, Harry and Lawrence called it a “complete and obvious whitewash” and questioned how justice could be achieved if the court found insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. The publisher’s former editor Paul Dacre described the case as a conspiracy intended to damage the newspaper. The appeal application also concerns the financial consequences of losing the case.

In August, the High Court ordered the claimants to make an initial payment of £9,544,355 within seven days while the final amount was calculated. The BBC reported that the group faced joint legal costs of up to £34.5m, while the Guardian described the potential bill as more than £50m, reflecting differing figures or stages in the costs assessment. The two reports also differ in their treatment of Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes, who was involved in the original action.

The BBC said the claimants’ statement did not mention him and that it had asked whether he would join the appeal. The Guardian’s account lists six claimants seeking permission but does not provide a separate update on Hughes. The original trial included evidence from current and former Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists and executives, who denied accusations of illegal activity.

Harry testified in person and argued that details in 14 articles plainly showed that journalists had listened to phone calls, but the judge found he had not proved that allegation. The next stage will depend on whether the Court of Appeal grants permission to challenge the rulings.