Hugh Grant v News Group Newspapers Limited
[2023] EWHC 1273 (Ch)
The Duke of Sussex v News Group Newspapers Limited
27 July 2023
[2023] EWHC 1944 (Ch)
High Court
Harry sued a newspaper for phone hacking. The judge said most of his claim was too late, because he knew enough to sue sooner, but he can still sue them for other things because it's not completely clear if he knew about those things sooner.
Key Facts
- •Prince Harry (the Duke of Sussex) sued News Group Newspapers Limited (NGN) for misuse of private information, including phone hacking, blagging, and use of private investigators.
- •NGN applied for strike out or summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred.
- •The Duke initially argued he was unaware of the phone-hacking until around 2018, relying on Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980.
- •The Duke later revealed a 'secret agreement' between the Royal Family and NGN, allegedly delaying claims until after the MTVIL litigation.
- •The Duke sought to amend his pleadings to include estoppel based on this agreement.
- •The court considered whether the Duke knew or could have known of a worthwhile claim before the limitation period expired.
Legal Principles
Limitation Act 1980, Section 32(1): A claim is not statute-barred if the defendant deliberately concealed facts relevant to the claim, and the claimant did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered those facts before the limitation period expired.
Limitation Act 1980
Estoppel: A legal principle preventing a party from going back on a promise or representation.
Common Law
Test for 'worthwhile claim' under s.32(1) requires knowledge of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude there was a worthwhile claim, not necessarily confidence of success.
Gemalto Holding BV v Infineon Technologies AG [2022] 3 WLR 1141
Permission to amend pleadings is granted if the amendment discloses a case with a real (not fanciful) prospect of success, considering the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Elite Property Holdings Ltd v Barclays Bank plc [2019] EWCA Civ 204; Kawasaki Kishen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33
Late amendments require a good reason for the delay and a balancing exercise considering prejudice to both parties; a very late amendment risks losing the trial date.
Swain-Mason v Mills & Reeve [2011] 1 WLR 2735; CIP Properties (AIPT) v Galliford Try Infrastructure [2015] EWHC 1345 (TCC)
Outcomes
Permission to amend the Reply to plead estoppel was refused.
The application was late, lacked credible evidence of the secret agreement and reliance, was inconsistent with previous pleadings, and the evidence was implausible.
Summary judgment was granted for NGN on the voicemail interception claims.
The Duke knew or could have known of a worthwhile claim before the limitation period expired, despite alleged concealment. He had sufficient information regarding the News of the World and could have reasonably investigated claims regarding The Sun.
The claims for blagging and use of private investigators were not time-barred.
The court found insufficient evidence to determine whether the Duke knew or could have known of these claims before the limitation period expired. This required further investigation at trial.