Harry and pals face 'eye-watering' legal fees after privacy case loss

The Duke of Sussex and other claimants who lost their High Court privacy case against the publisher of the Daily Mail face a potential legal bill of millions.

The group - which includes Sir Elton John, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and Elizabeth Hurley - sued Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over claims of unlawful information gathering.

But earlier this month, following an 11 week trial, the case was dismissed.

READ MORE: Prince Harry loses multi-million dollar phone-hacking case
READ MORE: Prince Harry swings by MasterChef Australia - with a potential ulterior motive

The BBC reports that in the High Court this week, the parties began a two-day hearing to decide who will pay what legal costs.

Lawyers for Harry and the other claimants described the costs incurred by ANL, which neared £34.5m ($66.2m AU) as of July 9, as "eye watering".

They added that ANL had exceeded its approved costs by over £18.6m, and noted that while group was insured against costs to some extent,  ANL had "overspent what they'd told us they'd actually spent".

Prince Harry, Elizabeth Hurley and Sir Elton John. Image: supplied

Prince Harry loses multi-million dollar phone-hacking case

The group of claimants accused publisher ANL of “clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information-gathering” over several years.

Dozens of journalists and private investigators were cited in the group’s claims, as 55 articles published between 1997 and 2015, and three incidents that did not lead to articles, were presented to the court.

The allegations including phone hacking, landline tapping and bugging via private investigators, and making corrupt payments to police.

The High Court in London dismissed the group’s claims in early July, on the basis that they had not proved any information had been obtained unlawfully.

The 436-page written verdict, Justice Nicklin said the court “could not simply infer that a story had been obtained unlawfully if there remained a legitimate and realistic legal way in which it could have been sourced."