Prince Harry Daily Mail Costs

Contact Us Today

Sign up to our newsletter

Consent

Prince Harry Daily Mail Costs

The costs described as “manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate” in the Prince Harry Daily Mail costs dispute, also involving other Claimants (including Sir Elton John and Elizabeth Hurley), for alleged misuse of private information by the paper, have been significantly reduced.

The purpose of the hearing, which took place on on 26 & 27 November 2024, was in relation to a Costs and Case Management Hearing to approve the parties’ Costs Budgets in relation to ongoing litigation.

In a written judgment endorsed by Mr. Justice Nicklin, Senior Master Cook noted that the parties in Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited had proposed spending altogether “just over £38.8 million on this litigation” in relation to costs budgets sought in the sum of £18.7 million plus VAT for the Claimants, and £19.8 million plus VAT for the Defendant newspaper.  The Judge stated: “The judge and I had little difficulty concluding that such sums were manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate.”

The judgment identified several reasons for this conclusion, including that the substantial costs were largely presented as contingencies, the Defendant’s solicitors charged hourly rates far above the prevailing guideline rates, and there was significant overlap in the claimants’ cases, with three different law firms instructing the same counsel team.

At the time of writing, the latest guideline hourly rates had been increased in January 2024 (and have since been updated in January 2025), with London 1 rates specifically reserved for “Very heavy commercial and corporate work by centrally based London firms”.  As such, to seek significant deviation from the same, particularly when the rates had been increased so recently, would have been reserved for only exceptional circumstances.

Whilst it is not the job at the CCMC to set hourly rates, it is a factor that must be considered when setting future budgeted costs, a higher rate inevitably leading to higher costs being claimed.  The CCMC Judge is therefore tasked with setting a global amount for each phase of the Budget which is considered reasonable and proportionate, so as to limit the expenditure of costs throughout litigation.

Additionally, there was “considerable uncertainty” regarding how the claims would progress to Trial and the number of applications likely to be made. The judgment also noted that insufficient consideration had been given to the fact that many members of the legal teams on both sides had experience with the Leveson Inquiry and subsequent litigation involving MGN Limited (publisher of the Mirror titles) and News Group Newspapers Limited (publisher of The Sun and News of the World).

The judgment noted that the claimants’ legal teams had “acquired considerable expertise in this type of litigation and were not starting from scratch.”

What Reductions were Applied to Costs Budgets at the CCMC?

The combined budgets for the claimants totalled £18,744,761.72, of which £14.6 million was for anticipated/budgeted costs, with budgeted costs limited to £4,084,000. Similarly, the Defendants’ total budget of £19,850,282.40 was reduced for anticipated/budgeted costs from £11.8 million to £4,445,000.  This reflects a circa. 2/3rds reduction on the budgeted costs as claimed, and any expenditure above and beyond this will more than likely not be permitted on conclusion of proceedings, pending any “good reason” to do so.  The “good reason” test is an exceptional threshold to exceed, and must reflect work ultimately completed which could not have been envisaged at the time of budgeting.  As such, general overspend will not be permitted and the successful party will be capped in their costs recovery in line with the approved Budget.

The judge described the claims as “really rather simple,” emphasising that the Claimants’ high profile does not affect the issues to be resolved and that they should set reasonable and proportionate expectations.

Budgeted costs were reduced across various stages, including statements of case, disclosure, witness statements, case management conferences, pre-trial reviews (PTR), trial preparation, the trial itself, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

As an example, in addressing the Disclosure phase, the Claimants initially sought £1,822,229.98, while the Defendants proposed £600,000 in their Costs Budget Discussion Report (Precedent R). Conversely, the Defendants sought £1,299,850, and the Claimants countered with £800,000.

Ultimately, the judge allowed £474,000 for the Claimants and £750,000 for the Defendants, stating that the amounts originally sought by both parties were “clearly outside the range of reasonable and proportionate costs.”

The judge noted that the Defendant’s solicitors’ hourly rates, claimed at £740 per hour for a grade A fee earner, were “high”, particularly as against the 2025 guideline rate for London 1 Grade A of £566.  It was also pointed out that there was significant duplication within the Claimants’ legal teams, particularly between Solicitors and Counsel. Additionally, while both sides would incur electronic hosting costs, the judge stated these expenses would not reach the levels anticipated in their budgets.

Regarding Trial Preparation, the Court allowed £1,250,000 for the Claimants and £1,100,000 for the Defendants—substantially lower than the £3,649,909.94 sought by the Claimants and the £4,569,175 requested by the Defendants. The judge remarked that the sums sought were “based on what we regard as a combination of excessive brief fees and excessive hours and grades of fee earners, given the complexity and nature of the issues involved.”

How could the Prince Harry Daily Mail Costs Case Progress?

CPR Rule 44.3 emphasises that costs must be proportionate to the matters in dispute. The Court’s reduced budgets will require the parties to carefully manage their expenditures. Any deviations from the approved budgets will need to be justified and may face further scrutiny.

Throughout the litigation, the parties may also be required to submit updated costs schedules, particularly if the case takes unexpected turns, allowing the Court to assess whether further adjustments are necessary.

If on conclusion, the parties cannot agree on the amount recoverable, the Court will conduct a detailed assessment to evaluate the necessity and proportionality of the costs incurred. In this process, the proportionality test will remain central, ensuring costs are justified in relation to the complexity of the case, the issues at stake, and the conduct of the parties.  The importance of Costs Budgets is that, costs that form part of the future budgeted costs will generally be permitted as claimed, removing a large area of dispute from the detailed assessment process (subject to any “good reasons” argument submitted by either party).  Incurred costs i.e. work done prior to the Costs Management Order, will still be subject to the full scope of the detailed assessment process, and can remain an area of contention, though they should form a smaller part of costs than those incurred between CCMC and any Trial.  It was recorded in the judgment that these incurred costs were circa. £4.1 million for the Claimants at the point of the CCMC, and £8.1 million for the Defendants, leaving a significant amount to be challenged on assessment.  The aforementioned approved budgeted figures are the approved permitted future expenditure on costs, in addition to the costs already incurred.

The decisions on costs made during this case could set important precedents, particularly in group litigation or high-profile cases. The Court’s scrutiny of inflated budgets, duplication of work, and speculative contingencies may serve as a benchmark for similar cases in the future.

If either party believes the court’s rulings on costs are overly restrictive or unfair, they may choose to appeal these decisions, potentially shaping the interpretation of proportionality and costs management principles further.

How can ARC Costs Assist with Your Costs Budgeting?

ARC Costs specialise in the increasingly complex area of legal costs which follow the conclusion of a legal action. We are an experienced and independent team of specialised Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers who can assist either Claimants or Defendants in resolving costs disputes.

Our expertise is not limited to dealing with costs at the conclusion of a case, and we would strongly recommend involving a costs expert from the outset of any proposed litigation, to ensure your retainer and charging rates are all in order, and crucially you will need legal expertise on costs at the stages of preparing Costs Budgets mid-litigation, or on conclusion in preparing a Bill of Costs as a Receiving Party.  We also provide legal costs negotiations services and regularly prepare Points of Reply as part of conducting detailed assessment proceedings.

As we are independent, we can also act for Paying Parties, for whom we often prepare Points of Dispute, and ensure that a proportionate level of costs is recovered, with any excess reduced from your costs liability. In the Prince Harry Daily Mail costs dispute, though Budgets have already been capped by a significant proportion of what was originally forecast, there remains to be submissions exchanged on the level of any overspend on approved Budgets, as well as the costs incurred prior to the Costs Management Order was made.

Proportionality is a subjective issue, and it is therefore important you have the right legal costs representative on your side during detailed assessment. This is to ensure you make the most persuasive submissions on the issue.

If you would like more information on any of our services or wish to speak to a member of our costs team about your case, then please do not hesitate to contact us. Please call us at 01204 397302, or email one of our costs experts direct on info@arccosts.co.uk.

Request Your Free Quotation

Contact us today for your free, no obligation quotation. Our team are on hand to help.

Location

4 Bark Street East, Bolton, BL1 2BQ

01204 397302

info@arccosts.co.uk

Follow Us