By Michael Holden and William James
LONDON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Harry, singer Elton John and other high-profile claimants face paying millions of dollars out of their own pockets to cover the legal costs of the Daily Mail's publisher after a judge ruled their failed privacy lawsuits were conducted in an unreasonable way.
Judge Matthew Nicklin's judgment on costs, which was published on Friday, ordered an interim payment from the claimants of £9.54 million, due by August 28, towards
the legal costs of Associated Newspapers.
In a further damaging blow, Nicklin said the additional costs should be paid on an "indemnity basis", meaning Associated does not need to show they were reasonable and proportionate.
Last month, Nicklin comprehensively rejected the case brought by King Charles' younger son, John and five other figures, rejecting allegations that the Mail titles had engaged in widespread unlawful activities, such as phone hacking.
The full extent of the payments due to Associated was not announced on Friday. If it cannot be agreed between the parties, Associated's costs will be assessed in separate proceedings.
JUDGMENT COMES AS HARRY IS SET TO MOVE BACK TO UK
The ruling comes days after the surprise news that Harry, who stepped down from official duties in 2020, will return with his wife Meghan and their two children to live in Britain from their current home in California.
Nicklin, explaining the decision on costs, was highly critical of the way the claimants' case had been put, including that serious allegations had rested on "speculative and inferential" foundations and had not been withdrawn when they were no longer being pursued.
"In my judgment, the cumulative effect of these matters takes the case well outside the norm. The conduct was unreasonable to a high degree," Nicklin said.
A spokesman for Associated Newspapers called the ruling "another overwhelming victory for the Mail and its journalism".
A spokesperson for Harry did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In July he called the dismissal of the lawsuit "a complete and obvious whitewash".
The prince, 41, has long blamed the press for the 1997 Paris car crash that killed his mother, Princess Diana, and compared her treatment to that of his American wife Meghan. Holding back tears in the witness box in January, he said the Daily Mail had made Meghan's life "an absolute misery".
He had previously won against the publisher of the Daily Mirror tabloid and had settled a claim with Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper arm, but the latest ruling is a significant defeat in his battles with the media.
CLAIMANTS' INSURANCE POLICY FALLS SHORT OF ESTIMATED COSTS
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.
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.
In his ruling rejecting Harry and the others' lawsuits following an 11-week trial, Nicklin said the claimants had needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully. He said 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.
(Reporting by Michael Holden and William James; editing by Kate Holton and Gareth Jones)
