A new allegation claiming Princess Kate’s phone was targeted by a private investigator will not be added to the upcoming legal case brought by Prince Harry and several other public figures against the publisher of the Daily Mail, a High Court judge has ruled.
Prince Harry is one of seven prominent claimants suing Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. The group, which also includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and Liz Hurley, accuses the company of unlawful information-gathering methods. These include hiring private investigators to install listening devices, obtaining confidential records through deception, and intercepting phone calls.
Read More: Kate Middleton Quietly Steps Back to Focus on Family and Health
ANL has repeatedly denied all the allegations, calling them “lurid” and “simply preposterous,” The Telegraph reported.
At a preliminary hearing earlier this month, lawyers for both sides returned to the High Court in London to prepare for the full trial, which is set to begin in January 2026. During the session, David Sherborne, representing the claimants, said that a private investigator’s record allegedly showed a journalist commissioning a “mobile phone conversion” related to the Princess of Wales, along with contact numbers for her “family and friends.”
However, in a written ruling issued Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin rejected the attempt to add the claim involving Princess Kate. “If the amendment were allowed, it would open up a significant new area of investigation for Associated and it is too late given the proximity of the trial date,” he said.
The judge also agreed to another request from ANL’s lawyer, Antony White KC, who asked the court to strike out allegations that two Mail on Sunday journalists burglarized the home of Michael Ward in 1992 and stole documents. Mr Justice Nicklin said those claims were too far removed from the case to be relevant.
Also Read: Prince Harry’s police protection case takes a new turn
“Even if proved true, they cannot assist in the fair resolution of the claimants’ claims,” he wrote. “It is not alleged that this incident has any connection with any claimant, or any pleaded journalist.”
In his 16-page decision, the judge noted that the issue had become “extremely complex” and described it as “an involved side-show.” He wrote, “The events took place over 30 years ago. This is not a small area of the case. It is now a substantial dispute of fact… Put bluntly, it has become a complex and involved side-show.”
(Photo Credit: Getty Images)
The ruling is a setback for the claimants, who also include David Furnish, Sadie Frost, and Sir Simon Hughes. Their legal team is expected to appeal, arguing that the judge’s decision was “wrong in fact and in law.”
Mr Justice Nicklin further clarified that the trial will not determine whether unlawful information gathering was widespread within ANL. “Quite simply, establishing whether unlawful information gathering was widespread and/or habitual at Associated is the territory of a public inquiry,” he wrote. “It is not necessary to determine that issue for the fair resolution of the claimants’ claims.”
More: Prince Harry wants ‘Reconciliation’ with the Royal Family
He added that any allegations “which are not relevant and probative” would be excluded to prevent the trial from becoming “an uncontrolled and wide-ranging investigation akin to a public inquiry.”
However, the claimants will be allowed to cite prior examples of alleged unlawful activity by journalists while they worked for other publications.
During the two-day hearing, the court also heard about a separate claim that details from Prince William’s 21st birthday party may have been obtained by a private investigator through “blagging,” or using deceit to get information. According to Sherborne, an invoice from August 2003 referred to the “Out of Africa Story Royal Party Enqs,” which he said was linked to a Daily Mail article published the day before William’s 21st birthday featuring “extensive” details about the event. “It can be inferred… that information for the article was obtained through blagging,” Sherborne said.
A further preliminary hearing in the case is expected next month.
