Prince Harry and five others ask to appeal Daily Mail privacy defeat

Harry, Elton John, Doreen Lawrence and three others have asked the Court of Appeal to review a July ruling that threw out their claims against the Daily Mail's publisher.

6 Nov 2026, 23:452 min read

Prince Harry's legal fight with the Daily Mail's publisher isn't over yet. He and five other well-known claimants have now asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the judge's verdict.

What happened?

On Friday, court staff confirmed that applications had been filed at the Court of Appeal in London. They cover both the dismissal of the claims and the order on costs.

The group includes Harry, Doreen Lawrence (mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence), singer Elton John, his husband David Furnish, and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost.

In a statement, their spokesperson said the claimants "respectfully disagree with those unprecedented decisions, which they consider to be legally and factually flawed."

Remind me, what was the case about?

The six sued Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, in October 2022. They alleged unlawful information gathering, including voicemail interception, landline tapping and "blagging" (getting private information by deception).

The publisher rejected all of it. Its lawyers called the claims "lurid" and "preposterous" and said journalists used legitimate sources, such as friends, press officers and other newspapers.

In July, after an 11-week trial, Mr Justice Nicklin dismissed the case in a 436-page judgment. He said no one had proved that any information was obtained unlawfully. He also said you can't infer unlawful sourcing if a legitimate, realistic route to a story remained.

Why does the money matter?

The claimants faced a legal bill of more than £50m. In August, the judge ordered them to pay £9,544,355 within seven days as an initial contribution to the publisher's costs. Further hearings will set the total.

After the verdict, Harry and Lawrence called it a "complete and obvious whitewash". Former Mail editor Paul Dacre said the case was a "conspiracy" by press regulation campaigners to "destroy a paper".