The Duke of Sussex “is one of two claimants whose claims are still live” against the publisher of The Sun over allegations of unlawful information gathering, his barrister has told the High Court.
A hearing on Friday was told that Harry, 40, and former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson are now the only people continuing their claims against News Group Newspapers (NGN) after several others settled their cases.
The court was told 39 cases have been settled since a previous hearing in July.
The two remaining cases are expected to go to trial in January 2025, with Harry alleging he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for NGN, which also published the now-defunct News Of The World.
The publisher has previously denied unlawful activity took place at The Sun.
He continued: “The reduction of the live claims to just two is a pretty recent development.”
The two sides have returned to court in London asking a judge to rule on preliminary issues before the trial in the two remaining cases, with Lord Watson in attendance at the hearing.
This includes whether Harry can be given access to “relevant emails sent between five email accounts of NGN employees and five employees of the Royal Household” between January 2013 and September 2019, which Mr Sherborne said would be “highly relevant” to his case.
In written submissions, the barrister said that the NGN employees included Rebekah Brooks, the CEO of News UK from September 2015, Robert Thomson, the CEO of News Corp from 2013, and Mike Darcey, the CEO of News UK until September 2015.
The Royal Household employees “are those involved in Royal Communications and the Private Secretaries to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II”.
He said: “Emails between NGN and the Palace would be highly relevant in terms of providing the full picture not only as to the actual knowledge of the claimant but also as to the position in relation to constructive knowledge, based on what the Palace was being told by NGN.”
He said: “The documents sought are not relevant to the pleaded issues in the Duke of Sussex’s case, are not necessary to ensure a fair trial will take place and are not likely to make a real difference to the prospect of settlement of the claim; and, moreover, the proposed searches would be disproportionate and would not save costs.”
The trial is expected to last between six and eight weeks, the court heard, with a further hearing due to be held in December.
The judge overseeing the case, Mr Justice Fancourt, has previously said the case resembles a campaign between “two obdurate but well-resourced armies”.
He added on Friday: “It is disappointing to me that the parties have been unable to progress things in the way that the court would expect.
“It is unsatisfactory that so little progress has been made.
“There needs to be further work done on both sides.”
A spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011 an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News Of The World.
“The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with proper claims.
“In some disputed cases, it has made commercial sense to come to a settlement agreement before trial to bring a resolution to the matter.
“As we reach the tail end of the litigation, NGN is drawing a line under the disputed matters.
“The civil proceedings have been running for more than a decade and deal with events 13-28 years ago. It is common practice, and indeed encouraged in litigation, to seek to settle claims outside court where both parties agree without the cost of a trial.”
Many others have settled their claims in recent years including actor Hugh Grant, actress Sienna Miller, ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne, comic Catherine Tate and Spice Girl Melanie Chisholm.
At a hearing in April, the High Court in London heard that Mr Grant had settled his case against NGN because of the risk of a £10 million legal bill if his case went to trial.
Mr Sherborne said at the earlier hearing that “the Duke of Sussex is subject to the same issues that Sienna Miller and Hugh Grant have been subject to, which is that the offers are made that make it impossible for them to go ahead”.
Grant said he was offered “an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court” that he did not want to accept.
