Prince Harry’s multi-million-pound legal battle against the publisher of the Daily Mail is set to reach a pivotal moment, with the High Court expected to deliver its long-awaited ruling on Tuesday.
The decision follows an 11-week trial, which concluded in March, in which the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and other high-profile claimants accused Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) of carrying out “grave breaches of privacy” over a 20-year period.
The claimants allege that dozens of articles published in the Daily Mail and its sister title, the Mail on Sunday, between the 1990s and 2011 were based on information obtained through unlawful methods, including phone hacking and blagging.
ANL, the Daily Mail, and the Mail on Sunday have strongly denied the allegations and reject all claims of wrongdoing.
With the High Court’s ruling due on Tuesday, here’s everything you need to know about the landmark case.
Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, outside the The Royal Courts of Justice
AFP/Getty
What celebrities are involved in the court battle?
There are seven claimants in the case against the Daily Mail publisher, including Prince Harry. Here’s a list of everyone involved:
Prince Harry — He gave an emotional testimony earlier this year, saying the actions of the Daily Mail publisher had made his wife Meghan’s life an “absolute misery”. He described a state of constant paranoia, explaining that leaks would have only been known to himself and a close circle of friends.
Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish — Sir Elton said in a witness statement it was “truly sickening” to learn how the Daily Mail breached his family’s privacy around the birth of his son Zachary. He described the intrusions, which also included articles about his own health, as “outside even the most basic standards of human decency”.
Sir Elton John said he feared for his children’s safety
PA Archive
Sir Simon Hughes — The former deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats said it was “distressing” that the publisher allegedly targeted him using “unlawful means”, adding they did so for “their own profit”.
Liz Hurley — The actress alleged private investigators working for the Daily Mail bugged her landline and placed microphones on her home windows to obtain stories, describing it as a “brutal invasion of privacy” and a “violation on a whole different mortifying and enraging scale”.
Sadie Frost — The actress said the publisher put a “price on my head” to obtain private stories, leaving her feeling “violated” and “sick with humiliation”.
Baroness Doreen Lawrence — The mother of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in 1993, said she felt “taken for a fool” and like “a victim all over again” after learning of the alleged unlawful conduct.
In evidence given in February 2026, she accused the paper of pretending to be her friend to gain “credibility for supporting a black family” while simultaneously spying on her.
What have the claimants alleged?
The claimants allege that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) engaged in unlawful information gathering, including hacking voicemail messages, intercepting landline calls and instructing private investigators to install listening devices in cars.
Liz Hurley (right) leaving the Royal Courts of Justice
PA Wire
They also claim journalists used ‘blagging’ – the practice of impersonating someone else to obtain confidential information, such as medical records or flight details.
In their opening submissions, the claimants alleged that a number of senior Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists were “engaged in or complicit in the culture of unlawful information gathering that wrecked the lives of so many”.
ANL has strongly denied the allegations and rejects all claims of wrongdoing.
They described the claims as “preposterous” and an “affront to the hard-working journalists whose reputations and integrity … are wrongly traduced”.
The trial concluded in late March, and a written judgment from Mr Justice Nicklin is anticipated on Tuesday, July 7.
How long has it been running?
The trial has lasted for 11 weeks, beginning in January of this year and concluding in March.
While the courtroom proceedings have ended, the legal battle has spanned nearly four years, since the first claims were filed in October 2022.
Sir Simon Hughes
PA Archive
What evidence was given in the trial?
Dozens of people took to the stand, including The Duke of Sussex, as well as a number of past and present Associated Newspapers employees and senior management.
During around two hours of cross-examination in January, Harry said he could not complain about some of the 14 articles in his case at the time “because of the institution I was in”.
He also said in his written evidence that “knowingly false” information was added to stories to “put me off the scent”, to conceal unlawful methods, including voicemail interception.
Sadie Frost arrives the Royal Courts Of Justice, central London ahead of giving evidence
PA Wire
Giving evidence, ANL admitted there may have been some minor breaches of data protection laws at its newspapers, such as obtaining unlisted telephone numbers, but said it had banned the use of private investigators from 2007 onwards.
As part of its defence, ANL said that Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday journalists provide a “compelling account of a pattern of legitimate sourcing of articles”, including friends and “leaky” social circles, press officers and spokespersons, as well as previous reporting, freelance journalists and stories from other newspapers and news agencies.
The trial also heard arguments over whether the cases were brought in time as the law states that legal action related to unlawful information-gathering must be launched within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.
Baroness Doreen Lawrence arriving at the Royal Courts Of Justice
PA Wire
How much will the case cost?
Legal teams estimate that the case could cost tens of millions of pounds. The losing side will likely bear most of these expenses, while the claimants, if successful, could also be awarded substantial damages.
What’s at stake for Harry?
Harry faces having to pay a significant portion of the publisher’s legal costs should he lose. It would also come as a huge blow to the prince in his self-appointed mission to ‘reform’ the British press.