Prince William has been dragged into Prince Harry's High Court legal battle against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
Today Prince Harry arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice for the second day of the privacy case hearing.
The Duke of Sussex is one of a number of high-profile individuals to bring claims against ANL for misuse of private information.
The legal proceedings began on Monday for the phone-tapping and privacy case involving the publisher of The Daily Mail newspaper.
The Duke of Sussex is one of a number of high-profile individuals to bring claims against ANL for misuse of private information
PA
The publisher has described the allegations as "preposterous smears".
ANL denies the allegations and the preliminary will consider legal arguments and a judge will decide whether it will go any further.
In court documents released on Monday, Harry claims his brother William was among the targets of a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, who worked for both Mail newspapers in 2005 and 2006.
In his statement of claim, Harry says Mulcaire, through former News of the World executive Greg Miskiw, provided “unlawfully or illegally obtained information” and offered a “menu of illegal services” to an employee of the Mail on Sunday.
“Mr Mulcaire and Mr Miskiw targeted a number of individuals who they knew were of considerable interest and value to the Mail on Sunday, routinely monitoring and carrying out unlawful acts in relation to them for potential stories.
“This included Hugh Grant, Jude Law, HRH Prince William, Sir Simon Hughes MP and Elizabeth Hurley.”
Prince Harry is bringing the action along with others including actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE.
Prince Harry stepped down as a working member of the Royal Family in 2020
PA
The preliminary High Court hearing is scheduled to last four days.
In a statement released in October when the legal action was announced, the newspaper group said: "We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old.
"These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims - based on no credible evidence - appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere."
