‘Camouflage’ claim made by Mail publisher lawyers in High Court battle

Lawyers for the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper have claimed “camouflage” may have been used in a legal battle over allegations of unlawful information gathering.

The Duke of Sussex and six other high-profile individuals, including Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish and actress Liz Hurley, are bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

The group has accused the publisher of carrying out or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, “blagging” private records, commissioning burglary to order and accessing private phone conversations.

Actress Sadie Frost, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes are also in the group.

ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal action, previously describing the claims as “lurid” and “simply preposterous”.

The second day of a preliminary hearing at the High Court was heard on Thursday, with no findings yet made in respect of the allegations, ahead of an expected trial in January.

The London court heard submissions over the disclosure of documents held by a research team on the side of the seven individuals and about who legally has control over them.

Antony White KC, for ANL, said it was “highly likely” that the research team had relevant documents, particularly about when some of the people in the cases knew they might have a claim.

In written submissions, the barrister said articles may have been published on the website Byline “with a view to deterring ANL” from arguing that Sir Simon’s claims were brought too late, recommended by a member of the research team.

Mr White said it appeared that Sir Simon could then use the articles to claim that he became aware of certain information as a result of their publication.

The barrister described this as “limitation camouflage”, telling the court: “You only need camouflage if you have got something to hide.”

Mr White asked the judge to order “proper” searches for documents that, if not followed, could mean the claims would be thrown out.

David Sherborne, for the seven individuals, described the allegation about Sir Simon’s case as “simply untrue” and said they will respond “in detail”.

He continued in written submissions: “The statements of case are the place for making, and responding to, such allegations, if they are seriously to be countenanced, and not in satellite disclosure proceedings when no barriers to reasonable searches have been erected.”

The barrister later said another allegation was “misconceived” and refuted a claim that lawyers for the group had engaged in “cherry picking” of disclosed documents, adding that the research team had offered searches.

“The research team was engaged in April 2022; the claimants consider the document, or documents, underpinning that engagement to be protected by legal professional privilege,” Mr Sherborne added.

He later said the requested order would be a “nuclear option” that was not needed in this case, continuing: “This is not a situation where the claimants have sought to breach an order and are contumelious.”

The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude on Thursday with a decision expected in writing in early October.