Legal eagles

I see from reference 1, that the legal eagles are going to do well out of the judgement against Elizabeth Hurley and others. The Hurley perhaps best known for her promotion of Versace safety pins.

But they do dish out near 500 pages of judgement for the money, even it took a few attempts to dig them out of the judiciary website. See references 2, 3 and 4. 

I think the bottom line is that the team for Hurley and the others failed to meet the civil standard of proof of improper behaviour by the Daily Mail. Not least because of the passage of time and the vagaries of record keeping: tricky to prove guilt from missing records; suspicious circumstances not good enough.

Something that I can relate to, having had something to do with records at an important government department. Plenty of vagaries there, best efforts notwithstanding.

References

Reference 1: How Prince Harry’s phone-hacking case against Daily Mail publisher was lost: Judgment marks potentially fatal setback in self-declared crusade to hold British tabloid press accountable - Alistair Gray and Daniel Thomas,  Financial Times - 2026.

Reference 2: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Lawrence-Others-v-ANL-2026-EWHC-1637-KB-Judgment-Summary-amended-by-RMC.pdf. 3 pages.

Reference 3: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Lawrence-Others-v-Associated-2026-EWHC-1637-KB.pdf. The main event. 436 pages, given 7th July. 

Reference 4: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Various-Claimants-v-Associated-Newspapers-Limited-Judgment.pdf. Costs. 44 pages, given 21st August.