Mirror publisher faces £2m legal costs after Prince Harry hacking trial
A group of high profile figures who sued the publisher of the Daily Mirror are seeking £2m in costs after a High Court judge ruled phone hacking became “widespread and habitual” at the publisher’s newspaper titles.
Last month, a judge ruled that phone hacking became “widespread and habitual” at the Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) titles in the late 1990s and was practised “even to some extent” during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards in 2011.
On Monday, during the latest hearing on the case, the High Court heard the group, whose claims were brought alongside Prince Harry’s, are seeking payment of £1,976,660 from MGN towards legal costs.
David Sherborne, barrister for the claimants, said in written submissions that “MGN’s dishonest and unreasonable defence” of the case into unlawful information gathering at the publisher “resulted in a distinct and huge generic trial, which it resoundingly lost”.
In December, Prince Harry was awarded damages of £140,600 after a High Court judge ruled he was the victim of phone hacking by MGN.
The duke sued MGN for damages, claiming journalists at its publications were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called “blagging” or gaining information by deception, and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.
Mr Sherborne said that decisions about the costs in Prince Harry’s case against the publisher are reserved until the rest of his claim is determined.
The High Court heard there are a further 115 articles in the duke’s claim after a sample of 33 were examined at the trial last year.
Mr Justice Fancourt previously ruled that 15 out of 33 articles in Prince Harry’s claim against MGN were the product of phone hacking or other unlawful information gathering from the end of 2003 to April 2009.
He also found that phone hacking was practised “even to some extent” during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards.
Roger Mallalieu KC, representing MGN, told the court that the publisher made offers to settle with Prince Harry but the terms of the offers were currently confidential.
The barrister said in written submissions that the group suing the publisher had only seen “partial success on the trial issues” and that those who lost their claims should pay their “respective share” of the so-called “generic” costs.
He said: “The starting point, and MGN submits the end point, is that unsuccessful claimants or claimants who have failed to beat MGN’s offers should in principle pay their share of MGN’s common costs.”
The judge’s finding that MGN editors knew about voicemail interception and unlawful information gathering prompted ex-Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan to deny he had ever hacked a phone or instructed anyone else to.
In a statement delivered to media outside his home, Mr Morgan said: “I’ve never hacked a phone or told anyone else to hack a phone. Nobody has produced any actual evidence to prove that I did.”
The duke’s case was heard alongside similar claims brought by actor Michael Turner, who is known professionally as Michael Le Vell and is most famous for playing Kevin Webster in Coronation Street, actress Nikki Sanderson and Fiona Wightman, the ex-wife of comedian Paul Whitehouse.
Claims brought by Ms Sanderson and Ms Wightman were dismissed by Mr Justice Fancourt because they were made too late, although he did find that some of their complaints were proved.
Mr Sherborne is expected to ask for the green light from the judge to appeal against this decision.
Mr Turner was awarded a total of £31,650 in damages after the judge ruled his phone hacking and unlawful information-gathering case was “proved only to a limited extent”.
In his written arguments, Mr Mallalieu said MGN would be seeking interim payments from Turner, Sanderson and Wightman of around £100,000 each.
On Monday, Mr Sherborne said there were 100 ‘live’ claims against the publisher, however, MGN’s lawyers told the court that around 75 per cent of these could be found to have been brought too late.
An MGN spokesperson said after the December ruling: “Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”
