High Court rules allegations against Princess Catherine and burglary claims inadmissible in suit
On 10 October 2025, a High Court judge sharply rebuked the legal team for Prince Harry after they attempted to expand their case against the Daily Mail’s publisher with fresh, sweeping allegations.
Mr Justice Nicklin, presiding over the privacy litigation, criticised the claimants’ lawyers for a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the case’s scope and forced them to drop claims concerning Princess Catherine and so-called “burglaries to order.”
Harry, along with six others — including Sir Elton John, Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, Liz Hurley, Sir Simon Hughes, David Furnish and Sadie Frost — is suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) for alleged privacy violations spanning up to 30 years. The proposed additions had sought to implicate Mail journalists in commissioning break-ins and targeting Catherine, Princess of Wales.
Embed from Getty Images
Justice Nicklin held that those allegations must be removed from the pleadings. He ruled that the claimants could not rely on phone-hacking cases against the Sun or Mirror as precedent, because those involved different allegations, defendants, and legal issues. Calling the proposed expansion “an enormous exercise” bordering on a public inquiry, he deemed it disproportionate and unnecessary.
During a two-day preliminary hearing earlier this month, Prince Harry’s lead counsel, David Sherborne, submitted evidence purporting to show private investigators had targeted Catherine using mobile data and addresses. The court also saw invoices from 2003 allegedly concerning Prince William’s 21st birthday party, which the claimants had lodged to bolster their new claims.
But Justice Nicklin determined these expansions would push the litigation into excessive complexity. He noted that the proposed claims risked embroiling the case in broad investigations well beyond its proper legal limits.
The claimants had accused ANL of hiring private investigators to plant listening devices in cars, “blagging” private records, intercepting voicemail conversations, and other illicit tactics. ANL, which publishes the Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, vehemently denies wrongdoing and described the new allegations as “lurid” and “preposterous.”
Though the judge struck out parts of the claimants’ proposed amendments, he allowed some of ANL’s objections to be overruled — particularly their attempt to exclude reliance on previous litigation findings. Still, he emphasised that the suit must remain focused and avoid transforming into a sprawling inquiry.
As of the ruling, no hearing date has been confirmed. The legal showdown between Harry and ANL is currently scheduled to begin in early 2026, and this decision is likely to reshape the contours of the case.