22nd January 2025

Long Read by Lucy Pether

The Duke of Sussex has settled his long running dispute with News Group Newspapers (NGN) over claims that the publisher illegally obtained private information about him over the period from 1996 to 2011.

The parties were due to embark on a much anticipated 10 week trial before Mr Justice Fancourt, but negotiations in the eleventh hour resulted in what the Duke of Sussex has called a “monumental” victory, with the publisher admitting unlawful activities at The Sun for the first time.

NGN has agreed to pay “substantial” damages and has provided a “full and unequivocal apology” to the Duke of Sussex “for the serious intrusion by The Sun” into his private life “including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun“. Notably, NGN has also admitted it intruded into the private life of Princess Diana.

While NGN has long admitted that journalists at its defunct title the News of the World used unlawful newsgathering practices, they have always denied any wrongdoing at The Sun or that executives covered it up. Since NGN was first engulfed by the phone hacking scandal almost 15 years ago, the group has settled over 1300 claims at a cost of over a billion pounds.

Numerous other claimants have already settled their claims against The Sun, including Hugh Grant, a vocal opponent of the tabloid press over many years, who accepted an “enormous” settlement sum last year when faced with the risk of millions of pounds of legal costs. Similarly, Sienna Miller agreed a settlement in her claim in 2021, publicly stating “I wanted to go to trial. I wanted to expose the criminality that runs through the heart of this corporation.”

Whilst earlier claims included allegations of phone hacking by The Sun, in 2023 NGN succeeded in having allegations of voicemail interception thrown out of the Duke of Sussex’s claim, with Mr Justice Fancourt ruling that such claims were time-barred, then reducing the scope of the Duke’s claim against The Sun to allegations of “blagging”, the use of private investigators, and surveillance.

Notably NGN continues to draw a distinction between the practices of News of the World, in respect of which they offer “a full and unequivocal apology” to the Duke of Sussex for “the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them”, and The Sun, which they continue to assert did not engage in phone hacking, releasing a statement following the settlement stating “There was no voicemail interception on The Sun“.

The settlement means that the allegations of unlawful information gathering will not be tested at trial, and the Duke of Sussex will not get his day in court. Indeed, Mr Justice Fancourt has stated that it would be “hard to imagine” that other claimants would take the allegations of unlawful information gathering made in the Duke of Sussex and Lord Watson’s claims to trial. For NGN, this will be a welcome relief. By making the claimants a settlement offer that was self-evidently too good to refuse, the publisher has avoided a public dissection of news gathering practices at The Sun, which, if the claimants’ claims were proved, would likely cause NGN a great deal of embarrassment given their dogged defence of the still-standing title.

The Duke of Sussex has been vocal about his wish for his claim to proceed to trial and his desire to seek accountability for other alleged victims. It is hard to think of an individual who has had their life more ravaged by the tabloid press, and he has repeatedly shown his willingness to robustly defend his right to privacy, having now spent years embroiled in various legal wranglings. To accept NGN’s offer of settlement will have no doubt been a difficult decision. NGN’s blanket apology for non-specified “incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators” means there will be no blow-by-blow account relayed in court (and reported by the media) of what happened and its impact on the alleged victims. However, the court of public opinion is not always kind. Even if his claim had proceeded to trial and been proved, there is no guarantee that such a result would invoke any more public sympathy than NGN’s apology, nor invite any additional scrutiny of NGN or wider tabloid practices.

The Duke of Sussex’s choice to settle his claim will have no doubt been heavily informed by his exposure to significant risk in terms of legal costs, reportedly in the region of £10 million. Though it is unclear what “substantial damages” amounts to in terms of an exact figure, the settlement sum is almost certainly a higher amount than would likely be awarded in damages if the claim succeeded at trial. Pursuant to Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, even if a claimant is successful at trial, if the damages awarded by the court are less than or equal to a settlement offer made under Part 36 rules, then the claimant would have to pay the legal costs for both sides incurred from the point that that offer expired. Faced with the offer of NGN’s “full and unequivocal” apology, it is hard to see how even the most determined and confident claimant would contemplate proceeding to trial when confronted with the risk of such adverse cost consequences.

While both the Duke of Sussex and NGN have good reasons to be pleased with the settlement reached, Mr Justice Fancourt appeared less positive about the outcome. Speaking to journalists and members of the public after the settlement was announced, he stated that “It is obviously regrettable that the agreement was only reached at a very late stage after huge resources, both private and public, have been dedicated to preparing these very complex claims for trial, but that is the parties’ prerogative.”

Lee & Thompson have represented a range of clients in phone hacking and related claims against The Sun, The News of the World and The Mirror over many years. Find out more about our privacy work here.

Contact Mike Brookes