In the judgment, Judge David Cook and Mr Justice Nicklin said that they wanted to make it clear to the claimants that they risked paying substantial costs in the event of a legal defeat.

The court had been told that the seven claimants were insured collectively for £14.1m to meet the “totality” of Associated Newspapers’ costs in the event they all lost.

However, the claimants had also obtained individual policies each worth £2.35m, meaning if only some won or others dropped out, their bills could end up being far higher than the £2.35m covered by insurance.

Posted by ButIDigress79

5 comments

  2. Really hope they strike a blow against the Daily Mail. I remember when News of the World had to fold.

  3. I chose the wrong career, it seems like I should’ve been a lawyer.

  4. And this is now the Daily Mail and the like get away with so much. Even someone as wealthy as Harry risks very real financial impact if he loses. Even with all the damning information he and his fellow claimants have brought forward, there’s no guarantee they will win.

  5. These fee provisions are wild. Are there any UK lawyers who can say if these rules are specific to this type of claim or if that’s the case commonly?

Comments are closed.