Nicklin J’s ruling on costs last week, in Various Claimants v Associated Newspapers [2026] EWHC 2207 (KB), ordered Prince Harry, Elton John and the five other claimants to make an interim payment of £9.54m towards Associated’s legal costs. He ruled the remaining costs to be paid on an indemnity basis, which disapplies the court-approved budget and removes the need for the costs to be ‘proportionate’. In July, after an 11-week trial, he rejected the claimants’ case that Associated engaged in phone hacking and other unlawful activities, at [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB).
Associated says it incurred £34.5m legal costs. The claimants’ after-the-event insurance policy only covered £16m.
Former costs judge Colin Campbell, now a consultant at costs law firm Kain Knight, said the order ‘means the publisher will no longer be constrained by the costs budget previously approved by Mr Justice Nicklin, potentially leaving the claimants exposed to an even larger bill.
‘Notably, the indemnity costs order came despite the judge expressly finding that none of the claimants had been dishonest in their evidence’.
However, he noted Nicklin J ‘was scathing about their projected £34.5m costs bill, branding it “excessively high” and “excessive” and describing it as a matter of “real concern”. That criticism could prove highly significant when the publisher ultimately seeks to recover its costs’.
David Bailey-Vella, chair of the Association of Costs Lawyers (ACL), said: ‘This could not have gone much worse for Prince Harry and the other claimants.
‘Though they failed to obtain a cap of £18-20m on the amount Associated could recover to bring it in line with the cover provided by their legal expenses insurance, the claimants will surely try again before the costs judges to try and show they relied on Associated’s original budget when buying the insurance and so should not have to pay more.’
Bailey-Vella predicted the costs process would ‘not be quick’, given the costs of the Wagatha Christie libel case (Vardy v Rooney and another [2022] EWHC 304 (QB)), which were significantly less, took two years and seven months to resolve.
‘For lawyers, the ruling is a sharp reminder that indemnity costs remain an exceptional response to litigation conducted outside the norm,’ he said.
‘For costs lawyers, the message is unmistakable: disciplined case management and evidential rigour are now central to avoiding indemnity costs exposure in high‑stakes litigation.’
Matthew Kain, chief executive officer at costs law firm Kain Knight, said: The costs claimed by the Mail still have to be reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
‘There are bound to be arguments brought by the claimants about hourly rates charged by the lawyers, the number of lawyers used and the number of hours that were actually worked.’
