An allegation that the publisher of the Daily Mail commissioned “burglary to order” will not form part of an upcoming legal battle by a group of stars including Prince Harry, a High Court judge has ruled.
The Duke of Sussex is one of a group of seven high-profile individuals bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over alleged unlawful information gathering.
The group, also including Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Liz Hurley, have accused the publisher of unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to place listening devices inside cars, "blagging" private records and accessing private phone conversations.
ANL firmly denies the allegations and is defending the legal action, previously describing the claims as "lurid" and "simply preposterous".
At a preliminary hearing earlier this month, lawyers for the group and the publisher returned to the High Court in London ahead of an expected trial in January 2026.
Antony White KC, for ANL, made a bid to have allegations that two Mail on Sunday journalists burgled the home of former businessman Michael Ward in 1992 and stole documents thrown out ahead of the trial.
And in a judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin agreed.
He said: “Even if proved true, they cannot assist in the fair resolution of the claimants' claims. It is not alleged that this incident has any connection with any claimant, or any pleaded journalist.”
In his 16-page ruling, the judge said the 30-year-old allegation had become a “substantial dispute of fact”.
"The costs and resources that would be devoted to resolving the factual dispute would, I am satisfied, be out of all proportion to any possible evidential value,” he continued.
"Put bluntly, it has become a complex and involved side-show."
He also ruled that establishing whether unlawful information gathering was widespread or habitual is not necessary to resolve the claims.
The judge said he would exclude allegations "which are not relevant and probative" from the trial and prevent the case from becoming "an uncontrolled and wide-ranging investigation akin to a public inquiry".
However, lawyers representing the group of seven, which also includes David Furnish, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes, will make a bid to appeal against Mr Justice Nicklin's ruling as wrong in fact and in law, it is understood.
At the two-day hearing earlier this month, which Prince Harry attended via video link, the celebrities’ lawyer David Sherborne also dragged the Prince of Wales into the legal battle, claiming his 21st birthday party may have been targeted by private investigators.
He claimed an invoice linked to a story from June 2003 – which included “extensive” details about William’s “out of Africa” themed party – was likely obtained through blagging.
“It can be inferred… that information for the article was obtained through blagging,” Mr Sherborne argued in written submissions.
Mr Sherborne also told the court that a record from a different private investigator allegedly shows a journalist commissioning him to provide a “mobile phone conversion” related to the Princess of Wales, as well as phone numbers from a “family and friends” list.
However, Antony White KC, for ANL, argued the claim includes “wholly unparticularised” allegations of unlawful information gathering (UIG) that should not proceed to the trial.
A further preliminary hearing is expected to take place next month.
Prince Harry warns ‘silence is killing people’ amid growing crisis
China spy case: Key questions answered after collapse blamed on Government
Thousands bring UK’s biggest-ever environmental pollution legal action over River Wye
Starmer seeks to blame Tories over collapse of China spy case
Ricky Hatton funeral latest: Legend’s son pays tearful tribute as stars join mourners
Anger over graffiti at Canterbury Cathedral - but it was put there deliberately
