Earl Charles Spencer left with soaring bill as estranged wife settles privacy case involving his new partner

The countess has now accepted a Part 36 offer to resolve the dispute, though she maintains she did nothing wrong. Under the terms of the settlement, Earl Spencer must cover legal costs surpassing £2million, along with £4,500 in damages payable to Ms Jarman.

A High Court judgment released on Monday morning confirmed that the 61-year-old earl is required to compensate his estranged wife regarding her acceptance of the settlement offer.

Ms Jarman, who had been working on an archaeological excavation at Earl Spencer's ancestral estate of Althorp, claimed the countess informed both the earl and other individuals about her MS condition without obtaining her permission.

Her legal representatives argued that she had never given the countess authorisation to share such sensitive medical information with anyone, stating that this absence of consent ought to have been apparent given the personal nature of the details and the circumstances under which they were originally shared.

The countess, 53, rejected all allegations of wrongdoing throughout the proceedings, maintaining that any mention of Ms Jarman's health condition was "entirely legitimate and justified".

Ms Jarman previously explained her decision to pursue legal action, telling the Mail that she had deliberately kept her diagnosis hidden from almost everyone.

"I have worked very hard indeed to keep my MS hidden, as should be my prerogative," she said, adding that Earl Spencer himself had not been told despite their romantic relationship.

A spokesman for Countess Spencer declared that she considers herself "fully vindicated" by the outcome, emphasising that the resolution involved no acknowledgement of liability or unlawful behaviour. The spokesman told the Times: "Countess Spencer sincerely hopes this will mark the end of the matter."

The financial arrangements stem from the couple's ongoing divorce proceedings, where arbitrator James Ewins KC determined that the earl must cover any costs arising from his wife's acceptance of the settlement.

Mr Justice Peel, delivering judgment in the family court, explained that the arbitrator had anticipated the countess would accept the Part 36 offer on the understanding that her husband would reimburse her for all associated expenses, including her own legal fees connected to the King's Bench proceedings.

However, the judge noted that several elements remain "hotly disputed" and the precise calculation of the final sum has yet to be agreed. During an earlier hearing, Ms Jarman's barrister, Kirsten Sjovoll, argued that the countess's legal expenses exceeding £500,000 were "excessively high", but Master Gidden rejected this characterisation.

The judge stated: "To my mind, they are costs falling within a range that is to be expected." The court heard that Ms Jarman's agreed future costs totalled £1,217,880, whilst the countess's legal fees amounted to £1,000,087.

The arbitrator explained his reasoning in the judgment, stating that his award was designed to resolve financial claims between the Spencers and conclude the liabilities arising from the proceedings involving Ms Jarman.

He achieved this by "financially incentivising, effectively requiring Lord Spencer to indemnify" his wife for accepting the settlement offer, using whatever authority he possessed to bring the litigation to a close.

The exact final figure remains undetermined, with the judge declining to prescribe how the arbitrator should approach the calculation.

GB News has contacted Earl Spencer for comment.