Prince Harry’s legal battle faces ‘serious questions’ as judge slams ‘inconsistent approach’

He said their explanations were "unconvincing" and that there were "serious questions to be answered" about their research team's documentation.

The judge ruled that documents showing witnesses had been paid or offered inducements must be disclosed, stating there was "a real prospect that Associated will be able to rely upon this evidence to attack the credibility of such witnesses."

The disclosure order could significantly impact the claimants' case ahead of the January 2026 trial.

The Duke of Sussex is joined in the legal action by actress Elizabeth Hurley, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, actress Sadie Frost, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes.

They accuse Associated Newspapers of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities, including hiring private investigators to tap phones, place listening devices inside cars, "blagging" private records, allegations of burglary commissioned to obtain information and accessing private phone conversations.

The allegations span from 1993 to 2018 and involve 82 different journalists, editors and executives at Associated Newspapers, relating to 53 articles in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.

Associated Newspapers denies all allegations, having previously described the claims as "lurid" and "simply preposterous."

The ruling followed a May hearing where Associated Newspapers' barrister Antony White KC revealed that limited documents showed "payments were made or offered" to "procure evidence and invoices."

Associated claims incentives were "offered or paid" by the claimants' research team, including a £5,000-a-month deal with private investigator Gavin Burrows.

Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to search for and disclose documents that could support "a case that potential witnesses have been given or offered financial incentives to provide information or evidence in support of allegations" of unlawful information gathering.

He stated: "Ultimately, the issue of whether the payment or inducement does affect the credibility of any witness is a matter to be resolved at trial."

The judge also ordered "targeted" un-redactions of Associated Newspapers' documents to assess whether certain journalists had patterns of engaging in unlawful information gathering.

The court additionally ordered the claimants to provide further documentation about their "personal watershed moments" - when they first became aware of potential claims.

LATEST ROYAL NEWS:

• Andrew’s social standing remains intact as King grants special permission
• Sophie Winkleman makes nod to Pippa as she arrives at Wimbledon
• Mike updates social media following Australia appearance with Zara

Mr Justice Nicklin found the lack of documentation surrounding these pivotal moments "surprising," noting that such revelations would surely have prompted "communications between trusted friends and family members; messages seeking advice or guidance, or expressing shock or outrage."

The judge noted that Prince Harry had sent a text message to Baroness Lawrence about "information" that had come to light, later following up with an email about material his barrister, David Sherborne, had "come across."

The judge warned that the absence of corroborating documents could support a challenge to the claimants' credibility at trial, which is scheduled to begin in January 2026 and last nine weeks.