The Duke of Sussex was one of the high-profile claimants in the case.

Prince Harry will receive his verdict today (Image: Getty)
Everything you need to know as Prince Harry awaits Daily Mail verdict
- The High Court case involves allegations of unlawful information gathering, such as landline tapping, obtaining information through deception, and voicemail hacking. The claim forms were first served nearly four years ago (in October 2022). The 45-day trial concluded on March 31.
- Prince Harry is part of a group of seven household names suing the publisher. The other claimants include Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, Baroness Doreen Lawrence (who claimed the Daily Mail “pretended” to support her search for justice following her son Stephen Lawrence’s 1993 murder), Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes.
- Harry’s case hinges on 14 articles published between 2001 and 2013. His lawyers argue that these stories focused in a highly intrusive and damaging way on relationships he tried to form prior to meeting Meghan Markle. Articles detailed intimate matters, such as naming his former nanny as a godparent and his past relationships with TV presenter Natalie Pinkham and his first serious girlfriend, Laura Gerard-Leigh.
-
Prince Harry gave evidence for roughly two hours. He was visibly emotional and close to tears by the end of his session, stating that the media continues to “come after” him and has made his wife’s life “an absolute misery.” He argued that the level of private detail published could only have come from illegal activities, stating that “they were plainly listening in to calls as well as spending large sums on private investigators.”
- The legal battle has been exceptionally expensive. Before the trial, the parties submitted initial estimated budgets totalling up to £38.6 million (£18.7 million for the claimants and £19.9 million for ANL). High Court judges later capped the recoverable costs at £4.1 million for the claimants and £4.4 million for ANL, ruling that the original proposed sums were “manifestly excessive.”

