Prince Harry and five others seek permission to appeal Daily Mail case loss

Prince Harry and five other claimants have asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the High Court's rejection of their claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail, The Guardian reported on 6 November 2026.

The other claimants are Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost. They sued Associated Newspapers, which publishes the Daily Mail, over claims that its staff had gathered private information unlawfully.

The case was heard by Mr Justice Nicklin, a High Court judge. In July 2026 he dismissed the claims. He ruled that the claimants had not proved that any information had been obtained unlawfully. His judgment runs to 436 pages, following an 11-week trial.

Permission to appeal is the formal leave a party needs before a higher court will hear an appeal. The claimants are also asking for permission to challenge the costs order made against them. Costs are the legal bills that one side pays to the other, and an indemnity costs order is a stricter version that can make the losing party cover more of the winner's expenses.

At trial, lawyers for the claimants alleged that Associated Newspapers staff, private investigators and freelance journalists had carried out three kinds of activity. These were voicemail interception, landline tapping, and a practice known as "blagging", which means obtaining information by deception, such as pretending to be someone else on the phone. Associated Newspapers denied that any voicemail interception or other unlawful information gathering was aimed at the Duke of Sussex, Reuters reported in January.

After the July ruling, the publisher called the outcome "an overwhelming victory", according to Reuters.

The costs are the largest part of the story. In August, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay £9,544,355 within seven days. That sum was an initial contribution towards the publisher's legal costs, not the final bill. The claimants face a total legal bill of more than £50 million, the Guardian reported. Reuters also reported in August that costs were expected to rise beyond that interim payment.

The judgment is publicly available. The case is cited as Lawrence & Others v Associated [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB), and the High Court's full written reasoning sits on the UK Judiciary website. Anyone wanting the detail behind the 436 pages can read it there.

What happens next depends on the Court of Appeal. It will decide whether the claimants may bring their challenge at all, and only then would any appeal be heard. Until then, the July ruling stands, and the costs order remains in force.