Prince Harry, who with his family recently decided to abandon their multimillion dollar home in California where they had attempted to assemble a social media empire and return to his home in the United Kingdom, now is facing a huge bill there.
Millions of dollars, actually about $13 million.
But he likely won’t have to pay the full amount himself. A court ruling has determined that Harry and several celebrities, singer Elton Johnson, filmmaker Davbid Furnish, actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, former lawmaker Simon Hughes and campaigner Doreen Lawyers, all are liable.
The award involves the costs incurred by the publisher of the Daily Mail, which the coalition sued in a privacy case – and lost in the High Court.
According to a report at Courthousenews, “The payment is an installment toward the legal costs of Associated Newspapers Limited, which publishes the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. It is not a final ruling on how much the publisher will ultimately recover.”
It was Matthew Nicklin, a judge in the case, who dismissed the allegations several weeks ago, concluding they failed to prove Associated Newspapers got their private information illegally.
The ruling concerning costs, which was left open-ended until more evidence is provided, came after the judge found that the case was “well outside the norm.”
Cited were allegations against individuals, a lack of evidence and the way claims were characterized.
Prince Harry, Elton John and five others ordered to make initial payment of £9.5m to Daily Mail publisher after losing privacy case https://t.co/NbmhpiWz7T
— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) August 21, 2026
Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Liz Hurley and Baroness Doreen Lawrence are facing a legal bill of up to £34.5m after losing their phone-hacking case against the Daily Mail publisher.
A judge has ordered the claimants to make an initial £9.5m payment within seven days.
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 21, 2026
“The cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm,” the judge wrote. “The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree.”
The court did note there wasn’t evidence the plaintiffs acted dishonestly, the report said.
According to the report, Associated Newspapers has confirmed the cost of defending the case was about $47 million, and the judge found that “exceptionally high.”
The report said, “If the parties cannot agree on the final amount, a specialist costs judge will examine the work done, time spent, legal fees and other expenses before deciding what can be recovered. The claimants can also appeal the July ruling and Friday’s costs decision.”
