Prince Harry and Five Others Seek to Challenge Daily Mail Privacy Ruling

Prince Harry and five other well-known figures have asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the High Court ruling that dismissed their privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

The group filed their applications on Friday, 6 November 2026. They want a higher court to look again at two decisions made by Mr Justice Nicklin: the dismissal of their claims in July, and a later order that made them pay a large share of the newspaper publisher’s legal costs.

The case is one of the biggest privacy battles in Britain in recent years. It involved claims of phone hacking, bugging and other unlawful ways of gathering information. The judge ruled that the claimants had failed to prove their claims. Now the group is asking for a second chance. London’s courts have been busy with high-profile cases this year — just this week, Russell Brand was found guilty of rape and three sexual assaults after a trial at Southwark Crown Court.

What happened on Friday

On Friday, a spokesperson for the six claimants confirmed that applications had been filed with the Court of Appeal. The statement said:

“We confirm that the claimants have today filed applications with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the judgments of Mr Justice Nicklin in respect of his dismissal of their claims and the indemnity costs order.”

The group added: “The claimants respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed.”

Court staff also confirmed on Friday that a bid to appeal against the rulings had been filed.

It is important to understand what this step means. The group has not won an appeal. They have only asked for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal must first decide whether the challenge can go ahead at all. No decision has been made yet, and no hearing date has been announced.

Who is involved in the appeal

The six people seeking permission to appeal are:

• Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, the 42-year-old younger son of King Charles III
• Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the campaigner whose son Stephen Lawrence was murdered in a racist attack in London in 1993
• Sir Elton John, the singer
• David Furnish, Elton John’s husband
• Elizabeth Hurley, the actress
• Sadie Frost, the actress

There were seven original claimants in the case. The seventh, former politician Sir Simon Hughes, was not named in the appeal statement.

The group is represented by the law firm Sheridans, which sent the statement to the news agency AFP.

What was the case about?

The seven public figures sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline. They accused the company of unlawful information gathering over many years.

Their lawyers alleged that private investigators, freelance journalists and staff working for ANL carried out acts including:

• Voicemail interception — listening to private phone messages
• Landline tapping — listening in on home phone calls
• Bugging cars and homes — placing listening devices in vehicles and houses
• “Blagging” — obtaining private information by deception, for example by pretending to be someone else to get records

ANL strongly denied all the claims. The company said its journalists had done nothing unlawful.

The case was heard at an 11-week trial in London earlier this year. Prince Harry gave evidence in person during the trial, which drew wide attention in Britain and around the world.

Why the judge dismissed the claims

On 7 July 2026, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed all the claims. He ruled that the claimants had failed to prove their allegations of unlawful information gathering.

The judge found that lawful explanations remained realistic for how the published information had been obtained. In other words, the court was not convinced that the stories could only have come from illegal methods.

This was a heavy defeat for the claimants. They had brought the case hoping to prove that the Daily Mail’s publisher had used the same kind of unlawful methods that had been exposed at other British newspapers in the past. The judge’s ruling said they had not proved it.

After the July ruling, Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence said in a joint statement: “We came to court seeking justice and accountability. But we have received neither.”

The £34.5 million costs question

The second ruling the group wants to challenge is about money — and the sums involved are very large.

In August, a month after dismissing the claims, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the group should pay £9,544,355 within seven days as an initial contribution to ANL’s legal costs. Further hearings will decide the final total.

The BBC reported that the group faces paying joint legal costs of up to £34.5 million. ANL had estimated that its total costs of defending the case had reached about £34.5 million by 9 July.

The judge also decided that the costs should be assessed on what lawyers call an “indemnity basis”. This is a stricter standard than the usual one, and it is more favourable to the publisher in terms of how much it can recover. The judge made this decision after finding that the case had been pursued in a way that took it “well outside the norm”.

That costs order is a big part of why the group is appealing. If the appeal succeeds and the dismissal is overturned, the costs picture could change completely. If the appeal fails, the group will still face the large bill.

What happens next

The next step is for the Court of Appeal to decide whether to grant permission to appeal. This is a filter. The court will look at the papers and decide whether the challenge has a real chance of success or raises an important point of law.

If permission is refused, the July dismissal and the costs order stand, and the case ends. If permission is granted, there will be a full appeal hearing, where judges will hear arguments from both sides before deciding.

No date has been set for either step. The process could take months.

Why this case matters

This case matters for several reasons.

First, it is about how newspapers gather information. For more than a decade, British newspapers have faced claims that reporters and private investigators used illegal methods to get stories. Some cases ended in large payouts. Others, like this one, ended in defeat for the claimants. The outcome of this appeal will help set the limits of what newspapers can be made to answer for in court.

Second, it matters for the people involved. Prince Harry has made his legal battles with the British press a central part of his public life since he stepped back from royal duties. According to AFP, this was the third and final case in his long legal battle against British tabloid newspapers. He won an earlier case against Mirror Group Newspapers in December 2023, and he settled a separate case against News Group Newspapers, the publisher of The Sun, in January 2025. The Daily Mail case was the one he lost — and now he is trying to reopen it.

Third, it matters because of the money. A costs bill of up to £34.5 million is enough to change how people think about bringing big privacy cases. Supporters of the claimants say the huge costs order will frighten ordinary people away from taking newspapers to court. Supporters of the publisher say the claimants brought a weak case and should pay for the time and money it took to defend it.

Finally, the case is a reminder that a court defeat is not always the end of a legal fight. In England and Wales, a losing side can ask a higher court to look at the case again — but only if the higher court agrees to hear it. That is the stage this case has now reached.

What the publisher says

ANL has consistently denied the claims. During the trial, the company said the allegations were not supported by evidence, and it welcomed the judge’s decision in July.

The company has not yet commented in detail on the appeal applications. As with the claimants, its position will be set out in court papers if the Court of Appeal agrees to hear the case.

The background in brief

Here is a short timeline of the case so far:

• 2022 — The seven claimants bring their claims against Associated Newspapers Limited.
• Early 2026 — An 11-week trial is held at the High Court in London. Prince Harry gives evidence in person.
• 7 July 2026 — Mr Justice Nicklin dismisses all the claims, ruling that the claimants failed to prove unlawful information gathering.
• August 2026 — The judge orders the group to pay £9,544,355 within seven days as an initial contribution to ANL’s costs, on an indemnity basis.
• 6 November 2026 — Prince Harry and five other claimants file applications with the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal both rulings.

Frequently asked questions

Has Prince Harry won his appeal against the Daily Mail publisher?

No. He and five other claimants have only applied for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal has not yet decided whether to allow the appeal to go ahead. The original High Court ruling, which dismissed their claims, still stands.

Who are the six people appealing?

Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost. A seventh original claimant, Sir Simon Hughes, was not named in the appeal statement.

What did they accuse the Daily Mail publisher of?

They accused Associated Newspapers Limited of unlawful information gathering, including voicemail interception, landline tapping, bugging cars and homes, and obtaining private information by deception, known as “blagging”. The company strongly denied the claims.

How much could the case cost them?

The group was ordered to pay £9,544,355 within seven days as an initial contribution to the publisher’s legal costs. The BBC reported that they face joint legal costs of up to £34.5 million, which is the amount ANL estimated it had spent defending the case.

What happens if the Court of Appeal refuses permission?

If permission is refused, the July dismissal and the costs order remain in place, and the case comes to an end.

Is this Prince Harry’s last court case against British newspapers?

According to AFP, this was the third and final case in his legal battle with British tabloid newspapers. He won a case against Mirror Group Newspapers in 2023 and settled a case against News Group Newspapers in 2025.

Conclusion

Prince Harry’s fight with the Daily Mail’s publisher is not over yet, but it is far from won. The six claimants have taken the first step towards an appeal, and they clearly believe the High Court got it wrong — both on the facts and on the costs.

The Court of Appeal will now decide whether their challenge deserves a full hearing. That decision, when it comes, will matter not just for Prince Harry and his fellow claimants, but for anyone thinking about taking a powerful newspaper to court in Britain. A refusal would leave a £34.5 million bill in place and close the book on one of the most high-profile privacy cases of recent years. Permission to appeal would reopen a case that many thought was finished.

For now, the ball is in the Court of Appeal’s court.

Sources

• BBC News — “Prince Harry and five others seek to challenge Mail publisher privacy ruling” (6 November 2026)
• PA Media / Hillingdon Times — “Harry and high-profile figures bring bid to appeal against Daily Mail rulings” (6 November 2026): https://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/news/national/26707873.harry-high-profile-figures-bring-bid-appeal-daily-mail-rulings/
• AFP — “Prince Harry seeks to appeal after losing case against UK tabloid” (6 November 2026)
• Reuters — reported by Royally Inspired, “Prince Harry Seeks Appeal After Daily Mail Privacy Case Dismissal” (6 November 2026)
• Sky News — “Prince Harry to appeal after privacy lawsuit against Daily Mail publisher dismissed” (6 November 2026)

This article is for general information and education only. It is not legal or financial advice.