Prince Harry loses High Court case after saying press made Meghan’s life ‘absolute misery’

The Duke of Sussex has lost his case against Associated Newspapers Limited which includes the Daily Mail

The Duke of Sussex has lost his High Court case, which included accusing the press of making his wife’s life an “absolute misery”. Back in January when he gave evidence in his trial against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Prince Harry told the judge: “They continue to come after me”.

Today (Tuesday, July 7), Harry, who is currently in the UK for events to mark the countdown to the Invictus Games, had his claims of unlawful information gathering by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) thrown out in a High Court ruling.

The King’s youngest son was visibly close to tears back in January when he appeared in court, describing his case against the publisher as a “recurring traumatic experience” and a “repeat of the past”. He rejected suggestions that he had “leaky” social circles or that he had used the pseudonym “Mr Mischief” to contact a female Mail on Sunday journalist.

He further maintained that for the press to “claim that I don’t have any right to privacy is disgusting”. The duke argued that 14 articles published by ANL between 2001 and 2013 were founded on unlawful information gathering, a claim which Associated firmly denied.

Mr Justice Nicklin stated in his Tuesday ruling that he accepted the limited evidence put forward by the Duke of Sussex at the January trial. However, he concluded that neither Harry nor fellow claimants, including Baroness Lawrence and Sir Elton John, had succeeded in proving the allegations of unlawful information gathering.

In a 436-page written judgment, the judge noted it was evident that Harry wished the court to “understand the personal impact of the matters in issue”. Mr Justice Nicklin said: “As I indicated to Prince Harry at the time, that is not uncommon: many litigants feel a strong instinct to argue their case themselves. However, when giving evidence, that is not a burden they are required to carry. The responsibility for advancing the party’s case rests with the advocate.”

He added: “Overall, this did not affect the quality of Prince Harry’s evidence, which I accept. As with each of the claimants, Prince Harry has limited evidence to give on the contentious matters in dispute.”

Amongst the Duke’s claims were that a private investigator named Mike Behr was hired to unlawfully acquire flight information and the seat number of Harry’s then-partner Chelsy Davy for her trip to South Africa, and that Mr Behr proposed to journalists that they could “plant someone next to her”. Further articles concerned “the intimate family matter” of Harry being selected as godfather to the child of his former nanny Tiggy Legge-Bourke.

Another piece focused on Harry’s “intimate relationship” with television presenter Natalie Pinkham, where Harry claimed his “privacy was invaded” through UIG (unlawful information gathering).

And it was “beyond cruel”, Harry stated in a written submission, for ANL to publish a piece about “confidential discussions” with his brother, the now-Prince of Wales, following the publication of a photograph of their dying mother in the Italian press. ANL described the dismissal of all 97 allegations brought by the claimants as “magnificent vindication of the Daily Mail’s journalism”.

Harry said he had always experienced an “uneasy relationship” with the press, though the royal family’s mantra was “never complain, never explain”, leaving “no alternative”.

Growing up as a young prince, Harry was acutely conscious of the devastating effects of relentless media intrusion on his mother Diana, Princess of Wales’s everyday existence. Harry was just 12 years old when Diana died in a collision after her vehicle, driven at excessive speed by an intoxicated chauffeur, was pursued through Paris streets by paparazzi photographers.

Decades on, the late Queen’s grandson earned the reputation as the predator of the “big beasts of the tabloid jungle” through his determined legal campaigns against sections of the media. In 2025, he reached a settlement with News Group Newspapers (NGN), securing substantial damages alongside a “full and unequivocal apology” for both “serious intrusion” into his private life and “unlawful activities” carried out by The Sun.

He declared it a “monumental victory” – with a significant apology also issued by NGN for the “extensive coverage and serious intrusion” into both his personal life and that of Diana during his childhood.

Lord Watson – Harry’s co-claimant in the NGN case – said: “I once said that the big beasts of the tabloid jungle have no predators. I was wrong, they have Prince Harry.”

Looking for more from MyLondon? Subscribe to our daily newsletters here for the latest and greatest updates from across London.