Prince Harry will soon receive a decision in his lawsuit against the publisher of the Mail, Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

After spending months considering the evidence following the conclusion of the trial, the judge has scheduled July 7 to deliver the long-awaited judgment.

Harry, alongside several high-profile British figures, accused the news organization of engaging in unlawful information-gathering practices in connection with reports previously published about them.

Prince Harry’s ANL Case Reaches Final Stage

Prince Harry is just days away from learning the outcome of his long-running legal battle against Mail publisher Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), bringing one of the most closely watched media lawsuits in the UK a step closer to a conclusion.

The Duke of Sussex is among a group of high-profile claimants that includes singer Elton John, his husband David Furnish, actresses Liz Hurley and Sadie Frost, campaigner Doreen Lawrence, and former British lawmaker Simon Hughes. Together, they filed a lawsuit against ANL in 2022, accusing the publisher of engaging in unlawful information-gathering practices linked to stories previously published about them.

Earlier this year, the case was heard over a 10-week trial, with lawyers for both sides presenting extensive evidence and arguments to persuade the judge.

After more than two months of consideration, Judge Matthew Nicklin confirmed that he will deliver his judgment on July 7, per Reuters.

Court Decision Could Cost Millions

Despite the weight of the evidence presented by both sides, it remains unclear how Justice Nicklin will rule when he delivers his judgment.

Whatever the outcome, the decision carries significant consequences for all parties involved, particularly financially.

The losing side is expected to bear the bulk of the legal costs, which reports suggest have climbed into the tens of millions of dollars after years of litigation. In addition, if Harry and the other claimants prevail, they could also be awarded substantial damages.

Beyond the financial implications, the case also carries major reputational stakes. The ruling is expected to shape public perception of everyone involved, with the losing party likely to face renewed scrutiny and lasting damage to its credibility.

Prince Harry Reportedly Fought Back Tears In Court

The Invictus Games founder took the stand during the trial and detailed at length how his life and that of his wife, Meghan Markle, had been affected by the news organization’s actions.

At one point, the duke could even be seen holding back tears as he emphasized that ANL was still actively targeting him despite the ongoing lawsuit.

“It is a horrible experience, and the worst of it is that by sitting up here and taking a stand against them… they continue to come after me,” said the prince at the time. “They have made my wife’s life an absolute misery.”

Prince Harry Rejected Journalists’ Friendship Claims

Elsewhere during his testimony, Harry described the defense’s arguments as “a repeat of the past” and “a recurring traumatic experience.”

“Having to sit here and go through this all again and have them claim I don’t have any right to any privacy is disgusting,” the prince also said.

He also flatly denied having any relationship with the reporters who published stories about him, pushing back against the defense’s suggestion that some journalists were part of his social circle and had therefore obtained the information lawfully rather than unlawfully.

“For the avoidance of doubt, I am not friends with any of these journalists, and I never have been,” Harry added.

Investigator’s Testimony Looms Large

As part of the trial, private investigator Gavin Burrows gave testimony from an undisclosed location.

His testimony is expected to prove pivotal, as the legal team representing Harry and the other claimants said Burrows provided a witness statement in August 2021 alleging that he had targeted possibly thousands of people on behalf of ANL.

The reported activities included tapping landlines, hacking voicemails, and obtaining information through deception. However, during the trial, Burrows flatly denied making the statement, claiming his signature had been forged on the document. He also said his X account, which featured posts supporting the claimants’ case, had been hacked, suggesting he was not responsible for those comments.