Prince Harry and Elton John
Lawsuit against Daily Mail publisher admitted
© imago/PPE
First small victory in the dispute between seven celebrities against the British press: A corresponding lawsuit against the publisher has now been approved.
Great success for numerous stars in a British court. As the English media unanimously report, a lawsuit brought by a total of seven celebrities has been approved. The editor of the daily newspaper “Daily Mail” previously applied for the High Court’s application to be dismissed. In addition to Prince Harry (39) and Elton John (76), the stars also include actresses Liz Hurley (58) and Sadie Frost (58 ).
At its core, the lawsuit alleges that Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) used prohibited practices to obtain information. Among other things, the celebrities accuse the publishers of listening in on telephone conversations, placing listening devices in cars, bribing police officers or hiring private detectives who invaded the plaintiffs’ privacy.
The publisher “firmly” rejects the allegations. These are “absurd slanders”. At a hearing in March, ANL’s lawyers also said the lawsuit should be dismissed because it was filed “far too late.” The presiding judge now decided to allow the proceedings. In his ruling, he saw a “real chance” that ANL had concealed “relevant facts” that would have enabled the celebrity to file a lawsuit at an earlier point in time.
Prince Harry and Elton John present at first hearing in March
The illegal actions – if the claims of Prince Harry and Co. are correct – were deliberately kept secret. Actor Hugh Grant, 63, was speaking as a board member of press reform campaign group Hacked Off to “Sky News” of a “significant blow to the Daily Mail.” It is great news for everyone who wants “the truth to come to light about allegations of illegal press practices.”
At the hearing in March, at which Prince Harry and Elton John were also present in the courtroom at times, their lawyers spoke of “extremely shocking” evidence. This shows that their clients have become victims of “heinous criminal activities” and “gross violations of privacy”.