Colin Campbell writes in The Times on whether Associated Newspapers’ costs bill might finally bring the curtain down on celebrity privacy litigation.
Colin Campbell examines the consequences of Prince Harry and his six co-claimants’ defeat in their privacy action against Associated Newspapers, and whether the prospect of indemnity costs on this scale might curb the appetite of wealthy individuals, insurers and claimant lawyers for ambitious privacy litigation.
Colin’s article was published in The Times, 2 September 2026, and can be found here.
Associated Newspapers’ costs bill might finally bring the curtain down on celebrity privacy litigation
The celebrity appetite for taking on the press may have been curbed by a £34.5 million dose of judicially administered Ozempic. That is the extraordinary sum Associated Newspapers (ANL) claims to have spent defeating Prince Harry and his six co-claimants, who now find themselves exposed well beyond their costs insurance cover.
Those hungry for their day in court might struggle to get their case to trial in the first place. A publisher can, in effect, buy its way out before the real fight has even begun. A Part 36 offer can put so much money on the table that continuing to trial becomes a risk which even the very wealthy are unwilling to take.
That is what happened to Hugh Grant in his litigation against News Group Newspapers. Grant wanted his allegations heard at trial but settled after receiving a tactical offer for “an enormous sum of money”. It left him facing the possibility of paying around £10 million in costs if he won the case but failed to recover even a penny less than the settlement offer. Claimants may want their day in court, but Part 36 gives newspapers the means to make an offer which even the super wealthy can’t refuse.
A newspaper prepared to take its chances at trial presents a different problem. Nicklin J, in an outcome which surprised many, – ordered the claimants to pay ANL’s costs on an indemnity basis. Nicklin made no finding of dishonesty; rather, his criticism went to the way the case had been conducted. Immensely serious allegations had been advanced based on circumstantial evidence and continued to be pursued when they should have been reassessed. Even the most upright celebrity cannot assume that indemnity costs are reserved for liars or those who have otherwise acted in bad faith.
The real sting of an indemnity costs order is that the approved costs budget which limits the recoverable costs no longer applies. ANL can now seek recovery of the costs it says it actually incurred. That means a claimed spend of £34.5 million, more than twice its approved budget and also over double the claimants’ reported £16.2 million ATE insurance cover. Post Harry, the safety nets of costs budgeting and insurance begin to look rather less secure.
ATE insurers are no doubt also reeling. Will they really be prepared to provide the same level of cover next time? They may instead limit it to standard-basis costs, demand substantially higher premiums or decide that the more speculative cases are simply not worth insuring. Any one of those outcomes would choke off claims before they are even issued.
Claimant lawyers may also become much choosier about the cases they take on. Many effectively stake years of unpaid work on the eventual success of a claim. This judgment may make the next ambitious case built heavily on inference look a rather less attractive bet – particularly when, if it all goes badly wrong, there is also the possibility of a wasted costs order being made against them personally.
There will, of course, continue to be genuine – and not to mention necessary – privacy cases against the press. Article 8 has not suddenly become a dead letter. But the days when wealthy individuals, lawyers and insurers were prepared to embark upon vast, expensive and highly ambitious actions may well be numbered.
