By Michael Holden
LONDON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Days after it was revealed he will return to Britain, Prince Harry will learn on Friday how many millions of pounds he might have to pay towards the legal costs of the Daily Mail publisher after losing a high-profile privacy lawsuit.
Last month, judge Matthew Nicklin at London's High Court comprehensively rejected the case brought by King Charles' younger son alongside singer Elton John and five other British figures, rejecting allegations that the Mail
titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.
Associated said it was an overwhelming victory for its newspaper and journalists, and "for a free press generally", while the prince, 41, described the ruling as a "complete and obvious whitewash".
On Friday, Nicklin will rule on how much the claimants should pay on an interim basis towards the Mail's legal costs, and, more significantly, whether Harry and the others should be paying the outstanding amount on an "indemnity basis".
If he decides to do this, it will mean that as the losing party the prince and the others must pay towards Associated's costs without the publisher needing to show these were reasonable and proportionate.
Nicklin will make a written judgment, so neither Harry nor any of the other parties will be present.
INTERIM PAYMENT SOUGHT
The court was told at a hearing in July that Associated had incurred a legal bill of £34.5 million ($45.8 million), while Harry and other claimants only had an insurance policy which covered £16 million.
The Mail's publisher is seeking an interim payment of £10 million while Harry and the six others have offered £8 million.
The court ruling comes after the shock news that Harry, his wife Meghan and their two children would be relocating to Britain this month from their home in California.
The couple, who stepped down from official duties in 2020 when they moved to the U.S., will not resume any royal roles nor receive any public money.
COSTS HEARING
At last month's hearing about costs, Associated's lawyer Antony White argued the claimants had made wide-ranging and serious "egregious" allegations without supporting evidence which had added to their costs.
He also said Harry's statement following the ruling was an abuse of his position and celebrity status.
Nicholas Bacon, the lawyer for the claimants, said in their submissions that Associated's £34.5 million legal bill was "eye-watering", far exceeding an agreed budget.
He said it had been reported that Associated wanted to teach the claimants a lesson, and that it would be unjust to award indemnity costs.
In rejecting Harry and the others' lawsuits following an 11-week trial, Nicklin had said the claimants had needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully, but they had failed to do so, and that suspicion alone was not enough.
No decision has yet been made on whether the claimants will appeal.
($1 = 0.7527 pounds)
(Reporting by Michael Holden;Editing by Alison Williams)
