Finance
Explainer-Prince Harry and Elton John take on the Daily Mail
Published by Global Banking and Finance Review
Posted on January 15, 2026
Global Banking and Finance Review
Company
Published by Global Banking and Finance Review
Posted on January 15, 2026
LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Harry, singer Elton John and five other high-profile figures' privacy lawsuits against the Daily Mail begin in earnest on Monday with the start of a trial at the High Court in London.
Here are details:
WHO IS SUING?
Prince Harry, King Charles' younger son and the Duke of Sussex, music legend Elton John, John's husband David Furnish, actors Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence and former British lawmaker Simon Hughes are suing Associated Newspapers Limited alleging unlawful information gathering.
They launched the action at the High Court against Associated, the publisher of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, in October 2020.
WHAT IS THE CASE ABOUT?
The seven claimants say that journalists working for the titles commissioned private investigators to commit a series of unlawful acts between 1993 and 2011.
These included hacking voicemail messages on their mobile phones, tapping their landline phones and obtaining confidential information, such as flight details and medical records, by deception – known as "blagging".
Among those named as being involved are some senior current and former journalists, including editors.
Associated denies all the allegations, calling them "preposterous smears".
WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR?
Numerous hearings, with often heated argument, have been held: firstly to decide whether the case should proceed and then what allegations the court could and should consider.
In November 2023, Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled the case should go to trial, rejecting Associated's argument it should be dismissed because it had been brought outside a six-year time limit.
The following year, the British government gave permission for the claimants' legal team to use documents submitted to a 2011-12 public inquiry into press standards, held in the wake of public anger over revelations of phone-hacking by journalists on the Rupert Murdoch-owned title, the News of the World.
However, Nicklin in October ruled Harry's lawyers could not use allegations about Kate, the Princess of Wales and wife of his older brother Prince William, as part of their case, and rejected many of their other applications.
The claimants have also had more wide-ranging parts of their case, referring to phone-hacking at separate media organisations, cut from their lawsuits.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE TRIAL?
Harry and all the other claimants will appear to give evidence and face questions from ANL's lawyers. John and his husband are likely to give their evidence remotely.
For Harry, it will be the second time he has appeared in a witness box, having become the first royal to do so for more than 130 years during his successful phone-hacking lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper in June 2023.
Among those due to appear to give evidence for ANL are current and former editors, senior journalists, and most notably Paul Dacre, the Mail's longstanding former editor and now the editor-in-chief of DMG Media, the publishing arm of Daily Mail and General Trust.
He is set to be their initial witness as Associated's lawyers said they would send senior figures "over the top" first.
WHAT WILL BE THE KEY ISSUES?
Nicklin has been clear throughout the preliminary hearings that the trial should focus solely on a number of specific articles which the claimants say were based on unlawfully-obtained information, and should not become a second wide-ranging public inquiry into the behaviour of the newspapers.
The claimants' lawyer is David Sherborne, who has represented Harry in other cases and was one of the most prominent lawyers in the public inquiry.
He will need to persuade Nicklin that Associated used unlawful means to get stories about Harry, John and the others. Associated's team will argue that the reports were legitimately obtained and private detectives were not paid to hack phones as the claimants allege.
Associated have cast the whole case as being manufactured by opponents of the press including actor Hugh Grant, the late motor racing boss and privacy campaigner Max Mosley, and other figures, some of whom are now part of a "research team" assisting Harry's lawyers.
They say a "Daily Mail Plan" was hatched years before, meaning that some of the lawsuits should fail on time limitation.
One of the key factors will be how the judge views evidence given by one of the key witnesses, private investigator Gavin Burrows, who is central to many of the allegations.
He gave the claimants' legal team a witness statement in August 2021 in which he said his work for Associated had included bugging landlines.
But he has since provided further declarations to Associated's lawyers, denying these claims and saying that he believed the statement given to Harry's lawyers had been "prepared by others without my knowledge", was "substantially untrue", and that his signature had been forged.
COULD A TRIAL STILL BE AVOIDED?
In January, Harry settled a lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch's UK newspaper group (NGN) just as a 10-week trial was due to start.
He won an apology from the group and an admission for the first time that private investigators working for the Sun newspaper had acted unlawfully.
NGN had previously paid out millions to around 1,000 victims of phone-hacking over activities by staff at its defunct News of the World title.
A similar deal would be trickier for Associated, though, as it has always stated its titles have not been involved in any unlawful newsgathering.
(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne)
Unlawful information gathering refers to the illegal collection of personal data or private information without consent, often through deceptive or intrusive methods.
Phone hacking is the unauthorized access to someone's voicemail or phone communications, typically to obtain private information or messages.
'Blagging' refers to obtaining confidential information through deception or manipulation, often involving impersonation or trickery.
Potential outcomes of a trial can include a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, monetary damages, injunctions against the defendant, or dismissal of the case.
Explore more articles in the Finance category
