Prince Harry scored a tactical victory in his battles with British tabloids Friday when government ministers said he could use confidential documents that show payments by the publisher of the Daily Mail to private investigators who allegedly snooped on him and several celebrities.

The Duke of Sussex, Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and others claim that Associated Newspapers Ltd. hacked their phones or used other unlawful means, such as bugging and other electronic surveillance to spy on them.

Justice Matthew Nicklin in November had rejected the newspapers’ effort to throw out the case, but his ruling also dealt a blow to Harry and the others.

Ledgers showing payments to private eyes that had been leaked to Harry’s legal team from a government inquiry into phone hacking could only be used with the newspapers’ permission or by an order from the judge who oversaw the 2011-12 probe or the government ministers who had ordered the inquiry, Nicklin said.

Associated Newspapers, which firmly denies the allegations and called them preposterous, refused to turn over the documents and opposed the government releasing them.

In a joint statement Friday by the home and culture secretaries — the departments that had ordered the Leveson Inquiry into press standards — said the documents could be used in the court case.

“In our judgment, the public interest in promoting the just, speedy and economic resolution of the proceedings outweighs the countervailing public interests,” the statement said.

Associated Newspapers said it would not comment on the decision.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-palace-shuts-down-rumors-about-kate-middletons-health-says-shes-doing-well-695327">Palace shuts down rumours about Kate Middleton's health, says she's 'doing well'</a>

The development comes as Harry’s flurry of litigation is winding down with trials due in the case against ANL and another case alongside Hugh Grant that makes similar allegations against the publisher of The Sun.

Harry won a big victory in December after a judge found phone hacking at Mirror Group Newspapers was “widespread and habitual.” After winning a judgment in court, he recently settled the remaining allegations for all his legal fees. The total sum wasn’t announced, but he was due to receive an interim payment of 400,000 pounds ($505,000).

Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, has bucked family tradition by going to court in his crusade against the press and was the first senior royal in over a century to enter the witness box when he testified in the Mirror trial.

His luck, so far, in the hacking cases has proven more successful than three cases related to the government’s decision to strip him of his publicly funded protection detail in the U.K. after he quit working as a member of the royal family and moved to the U.S.

A judge ruled Wednesday that the government did not act irrationally or treat him unfairly when it decided to provide security on a case-by-case basis. Harry vowed to appeal.

He recently withdrew a libel case against the Daily Mail over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to continue receiving government-funded security. He dropped the case after a judge ruled he was more likely to lose at trial, because the publisher could show that statements issued on his behalf were misleading and that the February 2022 article reflected an “honest opinion” and wasn’t libellous.

He could be faced with big legal bills in the cases that he has lost or dropped.

Prince Harry scored a tactical victory in his battles with British tabloids Friday when government ministers said he could use confidential documents that show payments by the publisher of the Daily Mail to private investigators who allegedly snooped on him and several celebrities.

Prince Harry scored a tactical victory in his battles with British tabloids Friday when government ministers said he could use confidential documents that show payments by the publisher of the Daily Mail to private investigators who allegedly snooped on him and several celebrities. The Duke of Sussex, Elton John, Elizabeth Hurley and others claim that Associated Newspapers Ltd. hacked their phones or used other unlawful means, such as bugging and other electronic surveillance to spy on them. Justice Matthew Nicklin in November had rejected the newspapers’ effort to throw out the case, but his ruling also dealt a blow to Harry and the others. Ledgers showing payments to private eyes that had been leaked to Harry’s legal team from a government inquiry into phone hacking could only be used with the newspapers’ permission or by an order from the judge who oversaw the 2011-12 probe or the government ministers who had ordered the inquiry, Nicklin said. Associated Newspapers, which firmly denies the allegations and called them preposterous, refused to turn over the documents and opposed the government releasing them. In a joint statement Friday by the home and culture secretaries — the departments that had ordered the Leveson Inquiry into press standards — said the documents could be used in the court case. “In our judgment, the public interest in promoting the just, speedy and economic resolution of the proceedings outweighs the countervailing public interests,” the statement said. Associated Newspapers said it would not comment on the decision. Also read: Palace shuts down rumours about Kate Middleton's health, says she's 'doing well' The development comes as Harry’s flurry of litigation is winding down with trials due in the case against ANL and another case alongside Hugh Grant that makes similar allegations against the publisher of The Sun. Harry won a big victory in December after a judge found phone hacking at Mirror Group Newspapers was “widespread and habitual.” After winning a judgment in court, he recently settled the remaining allegations for all his legal fees. The total sum wasn’t announced, but he was due to receive an interim payment of 400,000 pounds ($505,000). Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, has bucked family tradition by going to court in his crusade against the press and was the first senior royal in over a century to enter the witness box when he testified in the Mirror trial. His luck, so far, in the hacking cases has proven more successful than three cases related to the government’s decision to strip him of his publicly funded protection detail in the U.K. after he quit working as a member of the royal family and moved to the U.S. A judge ruled Wednesday that the government did not act irrationally or treat him unfairly when it decided to provide security on a case-by-case basis. Harry vowed to appeal. He recently withdrew a libel case against the Daily Mail over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to continue receiving government-funded security. He dropped the case after a judge ruled he was more likely to lose at trial, because the publisher could show that statements issued on his behalf were misleading and that the February 2022 article reflected an “honest opinion” and wasn’t libellous. He could be faced with big legal bills in the cases that he has lost or dropped.

Prince Harry gets ministers’ nod to use key evidence in phone hacking case against Daily Mail publisher

Prince Harry lost a preliminary round Friday in his libel case against the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the UK&nbsp;after walking away from his role as a working member of the royal family.

A judge at the High Court in London ruled that Associated Newspapers Ltd. can continue to argue that the story reflected an “honest opinion” about the facts of the case and therefore was not libelous. The publisher, which is the defendant in the case, has a “real prospect” of showing that public statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading, the judge wrote in his decision.

“I anticipate that, at trial, the defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning’,” Justice Matthew Nicklin wrote. “And, the defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public.”

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the consequences of the ruling.

The ruling comes just a day after another judge concluded three days of arguments — mostly behind closed doors — over whether the government unfairly stripped Harry of his security detail after he and his family moved to the US in 2020.

Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, is challenging the government’s decision to provide security on a case-by-case basis when he and his family visit Britain. Harry has said hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless hounding by the news media threaten their safety.

The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online published an article in February 2022 about the issue headlined: “How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret … then — just minutes after the story broke — his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.”

Harry claims the article was “fundamentally inaccurate” and the newspaper libelled him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements about his case challenging the government.

Associated Newspapers Ltd. argued the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not seriously harm Harry’s reputation.

Nicklin previously ruled the article was defamatory but had not considered whether the story was accurate or in the public interest.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-mr--mrs-smith-remake-trailer-donald-glover-maya-erskine-bring-espionage-and-romance-alive-667687">Mr. &amp; Mrs. Smith remake trailer: Donald Glover, Maya Erskine bring espionage and romance alive</a>

The government, meanwhile, has defended its decision to withdraw full protection for Harry because he had stepped down from his role as a senior working member of the family. It said he was treated fairly and provided with security occasionally when he visits.

Another judge earlier this year shot down Harry’s request to privately reimburse London’s police force to guard him when he comes to Britain. A government lawyer had argued officers shouldn’t be used as “private bodyguards for the wealthy.”

The dispute with the Mail is one of four lawsuits Harry has pending against publishers of British tabloids in his ongoing battle with the press.

His three other cases allege that journalists at the Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Sun used unlawful means, such as deception, phone hacking or hiring private investigators, to try to dig up dirt about him.

Prince Harry lost a preliminary round Friday in his libel case against the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the UK after walking away from his role as a working member of the royal family.

Prince Harry lost a preliminary round Friday in his libel case against the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid over an article that said he tried to hide his efforts to retain publicly funded protection in the UK after walking away from his role as a working member of the royal family. A judge at the High Court in London ruled that Associated Newspapers Ltd. can continue to argue that the story reflected an “honest opinion” about the facts of the case and therefore was not libelous. The publisher, which is the defendant in the case, has a “real prospect” of showing that public statements issued on Harry’s behalf were misleading, the judge wrote in his decision. “I anticipate that, at trial, the defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of ‘spinning’,” Justice Matthew Nicklin wrote. “And, the defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public.” A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the consequences of the ruling. The ruling comes just a day after another judge concluded three days of arguments — mostly behind closed doors — over whether the government unfairly stripped Harry of his security detail after he and his family moved to the US in 2020. Harry, 39, the younger son of King Charles III, is challenging the government’s decision to provide security on a case-by-case basis when he and his family visit Britain. Harry has said hostility toward him and his wife on social media and relentless hounding by the news media threaten their safety. The Mail on Sunday and Mail Online published an article in February 2022 about the issue headlined: “How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret … then — just minutes after the story broke — his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.” Harry claims the article was “fundamentally inaccurate” and the newspaper libelled him when it suggested he lied in his initial public statements about his case challenging the government. Associated Newspapers Ltd. argued the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not seriously harm Harry’s reputation. Nicklin previously ruled the article was defamatory but had not considered whether the story was accurate or in the public interest. Also read: Mr. & Mrs. Smith remake trailer: Donald Glover, Maya Erskine bring espionage and romance alive The government, meanwhile, has defended its decision to withdraw full protection for Harry because he had stepped down from his role as a senior working member of the family. It said he was treated fairly and provided with security occasionally when he visits. Another judge earlier this year shot down Harry’s request to privately reimburse London’s police force to guard him when he comes to Britain. A government lawyer had argued officers shouldn’t be used as “private bodyguards for the wealthy.” The dispute with the Mail is one of four lawsuits Harry has pending against publishers of British tabloids in his ongoing battle with the press. His three other cases allege that journalists at the Mail, the Daily Mirror and the Sun used unlawful means, such as deception, phone hacking or hiring private investigators, to try to dig up dirt about him.

Judge rules against Prince Harry in early stage of libel case against Daily Mail publisher

On Tuesday, the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, returned to the Royal Courts of Justice for day 2 of a preliminary hearing in his lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering and phone tapping.&nbsp;He was joined by Sir Elton John and actor Sadie Frost on Day 1 of the preliminary hearings, which are expected to conclude on Thursday.

Harry was seen entering&nbsp;the central London court a few minutes after 10 AM.&nbsp;His presence&nbsp;in the courtroom, which interestingly was done entirely on his own volition and not legally required, has fueled major media coverage, turning millions of&nbsp;eyeballs on the preliminary hearing.&nbsp;

A spokesperson for Prince Harry recently spoke to Reuters and revealed that the Duke of Sussex wanted to be present for the hearing to signal public support for the case.&nbsp;And, it doesn't come as a shock since he has spent years criticising tabloid media and has openly talked about the negative effects some of the coverage has had on him and his family.

The lawsuit has been filed collectively by seven high-profile individuals including Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes. Together, they have accused the Daily Mail and Mail publisher of "abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy" in its efforts to obtain dirt on high-profile, prominent people.

Still, confused about the privacy dispute between the seven claimants and Daily Mail publisher? Here's a detailed report on the explosive lawsuit!

<h2><a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/lifestyle/news-explained-why-prince-harry-elton-john-and-five-others-are-suing-daily-mail-publisher-576538">Explained: Why Prince Harry, Elton John and five others are suing Daily Mail publisher?</a></h2>

Here's a list of allegations made against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL):

<ul>
	<li>Hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside the claimants' cars and private properties.</li>
	<li>The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen in to, and record private phone calls.</li>
	<li>Paying police officials for sensitive inside information.</li>
	<li>Impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from hospitals by deception.</li>
	<li>Accessing&nbsp;bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.</li>
</ul>

Associated Newspapers has vehemently denied the allegations and wants the cases to be thrown out on the basis that they were brought too late.&nbsp;Now, the judge will decide whether the case will advance or be thrown out as the publisher has motioned for.&nbsp;

Harry has initiated several lawsuits in recent years. In 2019, he sued the owners of UK tabloids the Sun and the Daily Mirror over alleged illegal information gathering and phone hacking.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

On Tuesday, the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, returned to the Royal Courts of Justice for day 2 of a preliminary hearing in his lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering and phone tapping.

On Tuesday, the Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry, returned to the Royal Courts of Justice for day 2 of a preliminary hearing in his lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) over allegations of unlawful information gathering and phone tapping. He was joined by Sir Elton John and actor Sadie Frost on Day 1 of the preliminary hearings, which are expected to conclude on Thursday. Harry was seen entering the central London court a few minutes after 10 AM. His presence in the courtroom, which interestingly was done entirely on his own volition and not legally required, has fueled major media coverage, turning millions of eyeballs on the preliminary hearing. A spokesperson for Prince Harry recently spoke to Reuters and revealed that the Duke of Sussex wanted to be present for the hearing to signal public support for the case. And, it doesn't come as a shock since he has spent years criticising tabloid media and has openly talked about the negative effects some of the coverage has had on him and his family. The lawsuit has been filed collectively by seven high-profile individuals including Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes. Together, they have accused the Daily Mail and Mail publisher of "abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy" in its efforts to obtain dirt on high-profile, prominent people. Still, confused about the privacy dispute between the seven claimants and Daily Mail publisher? Here's a detailed report on the explosive lawsuit! Explained: Why Prince Harry, Elton John and five others are suing Daily Mail publisher? Here's a list of allegations made against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL): Hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside the claimants' cars and private properties. The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen in to, and record private phone calls. Paying police officials for sensitive inside information. Impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from hospitals by deception. Accessing bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation. Associated Newspapers has vehemently denied the allegations and wants the cases to be thrown out on the basis that they were brought too late. Now, the judge will decide whether the case will advance or be thrown out as the publisher has motioned for. Harry has initiated several lawsuits in recent years. In 2019, he sued the owners of UK tabloids the Sun and the Daily Mirror over alleged illegal information gathering and phone hacking. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Prince Harry v/s Daily Mail publisher: Duke of Sussex returns to high court for day 2 of preliminary hearing

A high-stakes legal showdown between Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, and seven prominent individuals, Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, commenced on Monday. The high-octane case against the media outlet, which was filed last year, was heard at London's High Court for the first time and both Prince Harry and Elton John were present in court for the proceedings.&nbsp;

The explosive lawsuit alleges that Associated Newspapers was responsible for "abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy" in its efforts to obtain dirt on high-profile figures.

The claimants have alleged that Associated Newspapers, one of Britain's biggest newspaper publishers who run Daily Mail and the Mail, is responsible for unlawful information gathering over a period of 25 years between 1993 and 2018.&nbsp;They have been accused of placing listening devices in victims' homes and cars, bugging their phone calls, and paying police officials for information.

In the lawsuit, the claimants'&nbsp;lawyers have also alleged that the publisher tasked private investigators to unlawfully obtain information about them and "even commissioned breaking and entry into their private properties".

The publisher, however,&nbsp;strongly denies all the allegations, arguing that the individuals have waited "too long" to start legal proceedings.&nbsp;When the lawsuit was filed, the publisher said that the claims are "preposterous smears"&nbsp;and that it "utterly and unambiguously refuted"&nbsp;them.

Associated Newspapers also stated in a recent interview that the&nbsp;claimants are mostly&nbsp;relying on the material provided by the Mail on a confidential basis to the Leveson inquiry into the British media industry.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/prince-harry-arrives-for-uk-court-hearing-against-daily-mail-publisher-576205">Prince Harry arrives for UK court hearing against Daily Mail publisher</a>

Speaking to Reuters,&nbsp;a spokesperson for Associated Newspapers&nbsp;said on Monday, "While Mail's admiration for [Doreen] Lawrence remains undimmed, we are profoundly saddened that she has been persuaded to bring this case."

The spokesperson&nbsp;added, "The Mail remains hugely proud of its pivotal role in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence. Its famous 'Murderers'&nbsp;front page triggered the Macpherson report."

For those unaware,&nbsp;Doreen Lawrence, one of the most notable claimants in the lawsuit, is the mother of the Black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a 1993 racist attack. The Daily Mail's coverage of&nbsp;Stephen's horrific murder has been held up as an example of newspaper journalism at its best. Their coverage helped the&nbsp;Lawrence family&nbsp;bring Stephen's killers to justice.

In the statement, the spokesperson also highlighted how one of the private investigators cited by Doreen has already provided a sworn statement mentioning that he never carried out any illegal work for the Daily Mail or Mail.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/johnny-depp-talks-about-his-quiet-life-in-rural-england-british-people-are-cool-576298">Johnny Depp talks about his quiet life in rural England: 'British people are cool'</a>

What're the allegations?

Although the cases of the seven claimants are being dealt with collectively, each has made&nbsp;distinct allegations of illegal behaviour against&nbsp;the publisher.

Doreen Lawrence, who had long been seen as an ally of the Daily Mail and its former editor Paul Dacre, has made some damning allegations against the Daily Mail. She now alleges that the news agency had asked private investigators to dig dirt on her while the paper was publicly campaigning to bring her son's killers to justice.

Lawrence further alleges that Daily Mail reporters had instructed private investigators to conduct an illegal interception of her voicemail messages, tapping of her landline, "blagging" of personal records, the monitoring of her bank accounts and phone bills, covert electronic surveillance and corrupt payments to serving Metropolitan police officers working on the murder investigations.

She has also identified four "unlawful articles", which she claims could not&nbsp;have been published without "the direct misuse or exploitation of the information unlawfully or illegally obtained". The acts identified in the lawsuit "represent only a fraction of the entirety of the separate unlawful acts committed in relation to her and her associates", according to Doreen.&nbsp;

The lawsuit stated, "The claimant [Doreen] feels anger, shock and upset, upon learning that the Daily Mail targeted her through the unlawful acts and exploited her and her son's murder through the unlawful articles, all of which was deliberately concealed from her both at the time and subsequently. Most of all, however, she feels a deep sense of betrayal. She finds it hard to believe the level of duplicity and manipulation that was clearly at play, knowing now as she does that the Daily Mail’s outward support for her fight to bring Stephen’s killers to justice was hollow, and worse, entirely false."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/courtroom-drama-continues-as-gwyneth-paltrow-gets-grilled-over-2016-skiing-incident-576070">Courtroom drama continues as Gwyneth Paltrow gets grilled over 2016 skiing incident</a>

"The claimant now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers and to profit. The claimant cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason. She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool," it further stated.

Prince Harry, in the explosive lawsuit, has&nbsp;alleged that the published&nbsp;illegally obtained material&nbsp;for a number of articles on his personal life, including details of his relationship with his&nbsp;ex-girlfriends Chelsy Davy, Natalie Pinkham and Cressida Bonas. He also accused the publisher of&nbsp;obtaining details of discussions between him and his&nbsp;brother Prince William about how to deal with the release of deathbed images of their mother, Princess Diana.

Harry says that the unlawful activity used to obtain these stories "largely deprived him of important aspects of his teenage years". He says he lost friends and everyone in his life became a "suspect". He adds that the stories were presented&nbsp;in a manner that led him to believe that those close to him were leaking the information to the publisher, rather than the alleged use of illegal reporting tactics.

The Duke of Sussex&nbsp;also claims that the publisher constantly released information related to his private travel plans, which "caused a significant security risk" and amounted to a "major betrayal"&nbsp;of the promises made by the British media to improve its conduct after Princess Diana's death in 1997.

Harry feels that even though the publication calls itself a "beacon of truth and integrity", the&nbsp;company "widely and habitually carried out or commissioned illegal or unlawful information gathering activities"&nbsp;to report on some of the most intimate moments of his life.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-jonathan-majors-lawyer-says-actor-is-completely-innocent-and-the-real-victim-in-assault-case-576048">Jonathan Majors' lawyer says actor is 'completely innocent and the real victim' in assault case</a>

What's next?

Associated Newspapers wants&nbsp;the cases to be thrown out on the basis that they were brought too late.&nbsp;Now, it is up to the judge to determine whether the case will advance or be thrown out as Associated Papers has motioned for. Monday was the first in four days of pre-trial hearings, which are expected to conclude on Thursday.

The presence of Prince Harry and Elton John in the courtroom, which interestingly was done entirely on their own volition and not legally required, has fueled major media coverage, turning millions of&nbsp;eyeballs on the preliminary hearing.&nbsp;A spokesperson for Prince Harry spoke to Reuters and revealed that the Duke of Sussex wanted to be present for the hearing to signal public support for the case.&nbsp;

It's currently unclear whether this case will result in profound consequences or not. But if it does go to trial, it is safe to say that it will grab global attention.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A high-stakes legal showdown between Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, and seven prominent individuals, Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, commenced on Monday.

A high-stakes legal showdown between Daily Mail publisher, Associated Newspapers, and seven prominent individuals, Doreen Lawrence, Elton John, David Furnish, Prince Harry, Liz Hurley, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, commenced on Monday. The high-octane case against the media outlet, which was filed last year, was heard at London's High Court for the first time and both Prince Harry and Elton John were present in court for the proceedings. The explosive lawsuit alleges that Associated Newspapers was responsible for "abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy" in its efforts to obtain dirt on high-profile figures. The claimants have alleged that Associated Newspapers, one of Britain's biggest newspaper publishers who run Daily Mail and the Mail, is responsible for unlawful information gathering over a period of 25 years between 1993 and 2018. They have been accused of placing listening devices in victims' homes and cars, bugging their phone calls, and paying police officials for information. In the lawsuit, the claimants' lawyers have also alleged that the publisher tasked private investigators to unlawfully obtain information about them and "even commissioned breaking and entry into their private properties". The publisher, however, strongly denies all the allegations, arguing that the individuals have waited "too long" to start legal proceedings. When the lawsuit was filed, the publisher said that the claims are "preposterous smears" and that it "utterly and unambiguously refuted" them. Associated Newspapers also stated in a recent interview that the claimants are mostly relying on the material provided by the Mail on a confidential basis to the Leveson inquiry into the British media industry. Also read: Prince Harry arrives for UK court hearing against Daily Mail publisher Speaking to Reuters, a spokesperson for Associated Newspapers said on Monday, "While Mail's admiration for [Doreen] Lawrence remains undimmed, we are profoundly saddened that she has been persuaded to bring this case." The spokesperson added, "The Mail remains hugely proud of its pivotal role in campaigning for justice for Stephen Lawrence. Its famous 'Murderers' front page triggered the Macpherson report." For those unaware, Doreen Lawrence, one of the most notable claimants in the lawsuit, is the mother of the Black teenager, Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a 1993 racist attack. The Daily Mail's coverage of Stephen's horrific murder has been held up as an example of newspaper journalism at its best. Their coverage helped the Lawrence family bring Stephen's killers to justice. In the statement, the spokesperson also highlighted how one of the private investigators cited by Doreen has already provided a sworn statement mentioning that he never carried out any illegal work for the Daily Mail or Mail. Also read: Johnny Depp talks about his quiet life in rural England: 'British people are cool' What're the allegations? Although the cases of the seven claimants are being dealt with collectively, each has made distinct allegations of illegal behaviour against the publisher. Doreen Lawrence, who had long been seen as an ally of the Daily Mail and its former editor Paul Dacre, has made some damning allegations against the Daily Mail. She now alleges that the news agency had asked private investigators to dig dirt on her while the paper was publicly campaigning to bring her son's killers to justice. Lawrence further alleges that Daily Mail reporters had instructed private investigators to conduct an illegal interception of her voicemail messages, tapping of her landline, "blagging" of personal records, the monitoring of her bank accounts and phone bills, covert electronic surveillance and corrupt payments to serving Metropolitan police officers working on the murder investigations. She has also identified four "unlawful articles", which she claims could not have been published without "the direct misuse or exploitation of the information unlawfully or illegally obtained". The acts identified in the lawsuit "represent only a fraction of the entirety of the separate unlawful acts committed in relation to her and her associates", according to Doreen. The lawsuit stated, "The claimant [Doreen] feels anger, shock and upset, upon learning that the Daily Mail targeted her through the unlawful acts and exploited her and her son's murder through the unlawful articles, all of which was deliberately concealed from her both at the time and subsequently. Most of all, however, she feels a deep sense of betrayal. She finds it hard to believe the level of duplicity and manipulation that was clearly at play, knowing now as she does that the Daily Mail’s outward support for her fight to bring Stephen’s killers to justice was hollow, and worse, entirely false." Also read: Courtroom drama continues as Gwyneth Paltrow gets grilled over 2016 skiing incident "The claimant now sees that the Daily Mail’s true interests were about self-promotion and using her and her son’s murder as a means to generate ‘exclusive’ headlines, sell newspapers and to profit. The claimant cannot think of any act or conduct lower than stealing and exploiting information from a mother who buried her son for this reason. She feels used and violated, and like she has been taken for a fool," it further stated. Prince Harry, in the explosive lawsuit, has alleged that the published illegally obtained material for a number of articles on his personal life, including details of his relationship with his ex-girlfriends Chelsy Davy, Natalie Pinkham and Cressida Bonas. He also accused the publisher of obtaining details of discussions between him and his brother Prince William about how to deal with the release of deathbed images of their mother, Princess Diana. Harry says that the unlawful activity used to obtain these stories "largely deprived him of important aspects of his teenage years". He says he lost friends and everyone in his life became a "suspect". He adds that the stories were presented in a manner that led him to believe that those close to him were leaking the information to the publisher, rather than the alleged use of illegal reporting tactics. The Duke of Sussex also claims that the publisher constantly released information related to his private travel plans, which "caused a significant security risk" and amounted to a "major betrayal" of the promises made by the British media to improve its conduct after Princess Diana's death in 1997. Harry feels that even though the publication calls itself a "beacon of truth and integrity", the company "widely and habitually carried out or commissioned illegal or unlawful information gathering activities" to report on some of the most intimate moments of his life. Also read: Jonathan Majors' lawyer says actor is 'completely innocent and the real victim' in assault case What's next? Associated Newspapers wants the cases to be thrown out on the basis that they were brought too late. Now, it is up to the judge to determine whether the case will advance or be thrown out as Associated Papers has motioned for. Monday was the first in four days of pre-trial hearings, which are expected to conclude on Thursday. The presence of Prince Harry and Elton John in the courtroom, which interestingly was done entirely on their own volition and not legally required, has fueled major media coverage, turning millions of eyeballs on the preliminary hearing. A spokesperson for Prince Harry spoke to Reuters and revealed that the Duke of Sussex wanted to be present for the hearing to signal public support for the case. It's currently unclear whether this case will result in profound consequences or not. But if it does go to trial, it is safe to say that it will grab global attention. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Explained: Why Prince Harry, Elton John and five others are suing Daily Mail publisher?