Lawyers for the Daily Mail's publisher have accused opponents of using "camouflage" tactics in a High Court battle over alleged unlawful information gathering. The claim emerged during proceedings involving Prince Harry and six other high-profile figures suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
The Duke of Sussex leads a group including Sir Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actress Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes. They have accused ANL of commissioning unlawful activities including hiring private investigators to place listening devices in cars, accessing private phone conversations and commissioning burglary.
ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal action, having previously described the claims as "lurid" and "simply preposterous". The case is expected to go to trial in January, with no findings yet made regarding the allegations.
Document disclosure dispute
The High Court heard submissions on Thursday about documents held by a research team working for the seven claimants. Antony White KC, representing ANL, argued it was "highly likely" the research team possessed relevant documents, particularly regarding when claimants became aware they might have claims.
White alleged that articles published on the Byline website may have been designed "with a view to deterring ANL" from arguing Sir Simon Hughes's claims were brought too late. The barrister suggested Sir Simon could then use these articles to claim he became aware of certain information through their publication.
White described this as "limitation camouflage", telling the court: "You only need camouflage if you have got something to hide." He requested the judge order "proper" searches for documents, warning that non-compliance could result in claims being dismissed.
Defence response
David Sherborne, representing the seven individuals, described the allegation about Sir Simon's case as "simply untrue" and said they would respond "in detail". He argued that such allegations should be made in formal legal statements rather than "satellite disclosure proceedings".
Sherborne refuted claims that lawyers had engaged in "cherry picking" of disclosed documents and said the research team had offered to conduct searches. He noted the research team was engaged in April 2022 and considered documents relating to that engagement protected by legal professional privilege.
The barrister called the requested order a "nuclear option" that was unnecessary, stating: "This is not a situation where the claimants have sought to breach an order and are contumelious." The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin concluded on Thursday, with a written decision expected in early October.
Sources used: "PA Media" Note: This article has been edited with the help of Artificial Intelligence.
