Princess Kate phone hacking claim blocked from Prince Harry court case

The group, which also includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Liz Hurley, allege that the company engaged in unlawful information-gathering, such as hiring private investigators to install listening devices, obtaining private records through deception, and intercepting phone calls.

ANL strongly denies the accusations and has described the claims as “lurid” and “simply preposterous”.

At a preliminary hearing earlier this month, lawyers for both sides returned to the High Court in London ahead of a full trial scheduled for January 2026.

During the hearing, David Sherborne, representing the claimants, said a record from a private investigator allegedly showed a journalist commissioning him to carry out a “mobile phone conversion” related to the Princess of Wales, along with a list of “family and friends” contact numbers.

In a written ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the attempt to add this new allegation to the case.

He said: “If the amendment were allowed it would open up a significant new area of investigation for Associated and it is too late given the proximity of the trial date.”

Antony White KC, representing ANL, had additionally asked the court to strike out allegations that two Mail on Sunday journalists burgled the home of Michael Ward in 1992 and stole documents.

Mr Justice Nicklin granted that request, ruling: “Even if proved true, they cannot assist in the fair resolution of the claimants’ claims. It is not alleged that this incident has any connection with any claimant, or any pleaded journalist.”

In his 16-page decision, the judge said dealing with that allegation had become “extremely complex” and an “involved side-show”.

He continued: “The events took place over 30 years ago. This is not a small area of the case. It is now a substantial dispute of fact… Put bluntly, it has become a complex and involved side-show.”

Lawyers acting for the claimants, who also include David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes, are expected to appeal against the decision, arguing that it is wrong in fact and in law.

Mr Justice Nicklin also ruled that the trial will not seek to determine whether alleged unlawful practices were widespread within the company.

He said: “Quite simply, establishing whether unlawful information gathering was widespread and/or habitual at Associated is the territory of a public inquiry. It is not necessary to determine that issue for the fair resolution of the claimants’ claims.”

He added that any allegations “which are not relevant and probative” would be excluded to prevent the proceedings from becoming “an uncontrolled and wide-ranging investigation akin to a public inquiry”.

However, the judge said the claimants may rely on previous examples of alleged unlawful activity by journalists while they were employed at other publications.

During the two-day hearing, the court also heard a separate claim that details about Prince William’s 21st birthday party may have been obtained by a private investigator through “blagging”.

In written submissions, Mr Sherborne said invoices disclosed on September 24 included one “related to the Prince of Wales”.

The document, dated August 25 2003, was titled “Out of Africa Story Royal Party Enqs”, and Mr Sherborne argued it was connected to a Daily Mail article published the day before William’s 21st birthday celebrations, which featured “extensive” details about the “out of Africa” themed party.

“It can be inferred… that information for the article was obtained through blagging,” he said.

A further preliminary hearing in the case is expected to take place next month.