The High Court in London has once again become the stage for a dramatic legal battle between Prince Harry and the publisher of the Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL). On October 1, 2025, a two-day preliminary hearing began, drawing intense scrutiny not only for its high-profile claimants but also for the explosive allegations that have come to light—some reaching back decades and now implicating other senior members of the British royal family.
Lawyers for Prince Harry have argued that his brother, Prince William, and William’s wife, Catherine, Princess of Wales, were also targeted by unlawful information gathering. According to BBC, details about Prince William’s 21st birthday party in June 2003 may have been obtained by a private investigator through a process known as “blagging”—essentially, deception to acquire confidential details. Catherine’s mobile phone, meanwhile, appeared to have been targeted for a “mobile phone conversion,” allegedly commissioned by a Mail journalist. These new claims surfaced in court filings and were discussed at length during the hearing.
Prince Harry is not alone in this fight. He is joined by six other prominent figures: Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actress Elizabeth Hurley, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence, actor Sadie Frost, and politician Sir Simon Hughes. Together, they accuse ANL of a litany of unlawful activities, including bugging homes, phone-hacking, hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, impersonating individuals to obtain medical information, and even orchestrating burglaries to order. The allegations paint a picture of a media culture that, if true, went far beyond legitimate journalism and into the realm of outright criminality.
Despite the gravity of these accusations, ANL has consistently and vehemently denied any wrongdoing. The publisher has described the claims as “lurid” and “simply preposterous,” insisting that its journalists have never commissioned or obtained information from phone hacking, phone tapping, bugging, computer or email hacking, or burglary. In a statement previously reported by BBC, a spokesperson for ANL asserted, “The stories concerned, many of which were published 20 or more years ago, and not subject to any complaint at the time, were the product of responsible journalism based on legitimate sources.”
The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is focused on preliminary issues, particularly which allegations should proceed to trial. ANL’s legal team, led by Antony White KC, argued that only “specific instances” of alleged wrongdoing should be considered by the court, rather than broad or generalized accusations. White stressed that “in several instances, it is unclear if the relevant targeting is even said to have been done on behalf of ANL,” noting that some claims appeared to conflate the actions of journalists from other newspaper groups, such as Mirror Group Newspapers or News Group Newspapers.
Prince Harry’s legal team, represented by barrister David Sherborne, countered that the attempt to exclude parts of the claim was “unreasonably and unfairly late” and should be dismissed. Sherborne pointed to invoices and records suggesting that information published by the Daily Mail ahead of Prince William’s birthday party was “obtained through blagging.” He also referenced a record indicating that a journalist had commissioned a private investigator to access phone numbers from a “family and friends” list linked to Catherine.
This legal action is just the latest in a series of courtroom battles Prince Harry has waged against the British tabloid press. He has previously won £140,600 in damages from Mirror Group Newspapers and received “substantial damages” in a settlement against News Group Newspapers earlier this year. According to Free Malaysia Today, Harry became the first British royal in over a century to take the witness stand during the now-settled case with NGN. His wife, Meghan, has also won a privacy lawsuit against ANL, and Harry has twice sued the publisher for libel—winning one case and withdrawing another.
The stakes of the current litigation are high, not just for the claimants but for the British press as a whole. This is the first time ANL has been directly implicated in the phone-hacking scandal that has haunted the UK media landscape for nearly two decades. The scandal led to the Leveson Inquiry, several criminal trials, and admissions by some newspapers that they had unlawfully targeted thousands of people. As reported by Reuters, Harry and his fellow claimants are seeking to hold ANL accountable for alleged breaches of privacy stretching back as far as 30 years.
The case has already seen its share of legal wrangling. In November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected ANL’s attempt to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the claims were brought “far too late.” The court was persuaded by the argument that new evidence had only recently come to light, making it impossible for the claimants to have known earlier how their information was being covertly acquired. In March 2024, government ministers ruled that confidential documents from the Leveson Inquiry, relating to Daily Mail payments to private investigators, could be disclosed in Harry’s claim.
Yet the litigation has not been without controversy on the claimants’ side. In January 2025, the court criticized both parties for submitting proposed litigation budgets totaling more than £38.8 million, calling them “manifestly excessive and therefore disproportionate.” The judge also ordered Harry’s lawyers to hand over documents relating to alleged payments made for evidence and potential financial incentives to witnesses, highlighting an “inconsistent and incoherent approach to disclosure.”
Adding to the complexity, the hearing has featured arguments over whether findings from previous lawsuits against other newspaper groups—such as Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers and Mirror Group Newspapers—should be considered relevant in the current case. ANL’s lawyers contend that only wrongdoing by their own journalists or private investigators should be on trial, not the broader practices of the British tabloid industry.
Prince Harry’s animosity toward the press is deeply personal. He has accused senior editors of authorizing unlawful intrusions that destroyed friendships and relationships, and he blames the media for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who died in a car crash in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi. Despite now living in California with Meghan and their two children, Harry has attended court in person on several occasions, underscoring his determination to see this fight through.
As the two-day hearing concluded on October 2, 2025, no ruling was made on the substance of the allegations. The trial itself is scheduled for January 2026 and could last up to nine weeks. With new evidence, high-profile claimants, and decades of British media history at stake, the case promises to keep the world’s attention fixed on the High Court in the months to come.
Whatever the outcome, the proceedings have already cast a fresh spotlight on the fraught relationship between the royals and the press, and the ongoing struggle to balance press freedom with personal privacy in the digital age.
