Prince Harry set for hefty bill as Duke of Sussex faces paying 'two-thirds' of NGN's legal costs

Mr Justice Fancourt, the judge presiding over the case, has determined the costs of NGN's application.

Anthony Hudson KC represented NGN in the legal case while David Sherborne represented Prince Harry.

In a detailed explanation, Fancourt said: "The first question is whether I can identify who has been the successful party.

"I can, and the successful party to my mind is undoubtedly NGN, although it has not succeeded on the whole of its application.

"The next question for me, then, is whether to make some different order, or adjustment to the order for costs that would otherwise be made that the unsuccessful party pay the successful party's costs.

"Mr Hudson, frankly and straightforwardly, recognises that it can be said that there has been a significant degree to which NGN has not achieved what it set out to achieve."

He added: "I agree with Mr Sherborne to the extent that he says that NGN framed its application too broadly, and I consider that there should be some adjustment to reflect that.

"In addition to the breadth of the relief that was sought and not obtained, there is a question of prematurity."

Justice Fancourt continued: "In my view, NGN was justified in deciding that the time had come where an application should be made.

"There had been previous correspondence which took a great deal of time to progress and not much progress had been made.

LATEST ROYAL NEWS:

• Prince William's overseas appearance in doubt as Princess Kate to remain in London
• Sunak resigns as Prime Minister at Buckingham Palace in departure audience with King after crushing defeat
  
• Prince Harry facing uncomfortable situation as petition demanding U-turn reaches 50k signatures

"The assessment that the defendant should not wait longer was not an unreasonable one, given that this matter obviously had to be heard before the summer vacation.

"But in any event, regardless of prematurity, if NGN had waited until 3 May for the claimant's solicitors' response, they would still have been in the position of needing to issue the application to obtain the relief that they have succeeded in obtaining today. Therefore, it seems to me that the prematurity point goes nowhere."

The judge concluded: "Looking at the matter in overall terms, therefore, taking account of the extent to which NGN has not succeeded on its application, including both the original wording of the order and the new point introduced, it seems to me that the fair order in the circumstances is that the claimant should pay NGN two-thirds of their costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis if not agreed."