Prince Harry's Multi-Million-Dollar Gamble

A U.K. tabloid sued by Prince Harry has given a strong indication it plans to fight tooth and nail over his allegations of unlawful practices, in a court filing seen by Newsweek, setting the scene for a big-money gamble by the royal.

The Duke of Sussex has already seen part of his claim against The Sun thrown out by a judge for being filed too late but he is currently on course to take the rest to trial, risking huge costs if he loses.

And The Sun, owned by the Murdoch family, appears to be gearing up to try to sink the case on a technicality, raising the prospect he could have to pay out millions of dollars even if his central claim—that he was targeted with unlawful tactics—is true.

The costs, as is often the case in the British courts, could dwarf any potential damages he would be paid if he wins, leaving the prince on the cusp of a major financial gamble.

Two recent revelations have brought into sharp focus just how big a difference winning and losing could make to the prince.

First, he ditched a libel lawsuit against The Mail on Sunday recently, cutting his losses, before it reached trial. The newspaper has warned him to expect costs heading in the direction of $1 million.

This compares to around $180k in damages paid to him from a lawsuit he won against the Mirror Group, though it is possible he get some further money from pursuing other allegations against the publisher.

Needless to say, a hearing in that case on Monday revealed Harry's lawyers are asking the Mirror Group for an initial payment of around $2.5 million in costs after trial, with only part of the tally calculated.

So, if Harry takes the case to trial and loses he could expect a major, potentially seven-figure, legal bill at the end of it.

But if ditches the case, the saga will still make a major dent in his finances and he has another two cases on the go. If he also starts chalking up defeats elsewhere then the sums involved could quickly become dizzying.

How The Sun Will Fight Prince Harry's Case

Prince Harry initially accused journalists at The Sun of illegally tapping his cell phone voicemail messages and obtaining private information, including flight records, through other unlawful means.

However, the publisher, News Group Newspapers (NGN), argued Prince Harry's allegations were too old and applied to have the case thrown out. They said illegal practices at one of its titles, the News of the World, were widely known about in 2006.

Lawsuits are supposed to brought within six years and the current one was filed in 2019, so if there was any information available to Harry prior to September 2013 indicating he had been a victim of these unlawful practices then it could torpedo his lawsuit.

In July last year the judge ruled that Harry knew enough that he should have brought the phone hacking part of his claim earlier and nixed it but also said a trial would be needed to properly investigate whether he could have discovered that he may also have been a victim of other unlawful practices.

That raised the question of whether the newspaper would now settle, whether they would ditch that line of argument altogether or whether they would mount a new bid to sink Harry's case on this technicality.

A court filing seen by Newsweek shows they appear to be gearing up to relaunch this line of attack at trial—raising the prospect that Harry's quest for justice could land him a seven-figure legal bill even if his central claims are true.

Over ten pages, lawyers for the publisher asked detailed questions about exactly what Harry knew prior to September 2013, while the royal's legal team protested that he only needs to supply information that is "reasonably necessary and proportionate."

The filing, signed "HRH The Duke of Sussex," swerved many of the specifics and included a blanket statement from Harry's team saying he was not aware he could bring a claim until after 2013.

The statement reads: "Without in any way waiving legal privilege, [Prince Harry] became aware through legal advisers to his family that he and his brother could bring a claim much later (in or about 2018) but was initially discouraged from doing so, not least because of assurances given by News Group Senior Executives to the family about resolving complaints over these activities once the [phone hacking] litigation had ended."

In July, Judge Timothy Fancourt ruled: "Investigation into the extent of NGN's voicemail interception at both newspapers might well have led to material suggesting a worthwhile claim for different [unlawful information gathering] activities, but that is not such an obvious outcome that I can regard any other conclusion at this stage as being fanciful.

"In my judgment, this is an issue that should be determined only at a trial, with a fuller evidential picture."

Jack Royston is Newsweek's chief royal correspondent based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page.

Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@newsweek.com. We'd love to hear from you.