Payments made or offered to witnesses to procure evidence are under scrutiny, highlighting ongoing concerns about the integrity of evidence collection.

Two claimants, Sadie Frost and Simon Hughes, are accused of orchestrating stories to evade the six-year legal limit, with the court ruling in late 2023 in favor of the claimants on this issue.

Harry’s legal team emphasizes that the broader claims, including allegations of phone hacking and illegal surveillance, are vital to the case and should not be dismissed.

The case is set against a backdrop of broader media scrutiny and conflicts between the royal family and the press, with the publisher denying unlawful conduct and claiming some evidence is outdated or not directly linked.

Previous court rulings dismissed early attempts by Associated Newspapers to limit the case, and government disclosures in 2024 allowed access to confidential documents related to private investigations.

The court has also examined allegations of a scheme involving former politicians and journalists to develop and conceal evidence related to phone hacking claims, with some evidence discussed as late as 2019.

The proceedings have scrutinized the high costs of litigation and whether findings from other media lawsuits should influence this case, which involves complex issues of privacy and press misconduct.

Allegations include that Baroness Doreen Lawrence was alerted to a potential claim via a text from Harry in January 2022, and that Harry’s legal team discussed payments for evidence, raising questions about the integrity of the process.

Prince Harry will not attend the upcoming hearing as he has returned to the US, but the case continues to be a focal point of legal and media attention.

The High Court is currently hearing a high-profile case brought by Prince Harry, Sir Elton John, Doreen Lawrence, Liz Hurley, and others against Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail, alleging unlawful activities including hiring private investigators and accessing private information.

The case, which has been ongoing since 2022 and involves allegations dating back decades, is scheduled for trial in January 2025, with the trial expected to last up to nine weeks.

A preliminary hearing discussed document disclosure and control, with arguments over relevant evidence, while the case involves complex legal issues including disputes over the timing of claims and allegations of financial incentives to witnesses.

Both sides debated the scope of evidence disclosure, with the court scrutinizing the legality of research team holdings and the potential impact of non-compliance on the case.

The case involves significant legal complexities, including disputes over evidence, the scope of allegations, and allegations of efforts to circumvent the six-year legal time limit for civil claims.

The hearing was scheduled to conclude with a decision in early October, and the court is considering a court order for extensive document searches, with the judge expected to decide soon amid concerns over compliance and the legality of evidence.

The court has addressed issues related to the statute of limitations, with a previous ruling favoring the claimants, and is examining allegations of a 'camouflage scheme' by research teams to mislead about claim timing.

The court has ordered disclosure of documents related to payments for evidence and inducements to witnesses, criticizing the proposed legal budgets as disproportionate, with legal costs exceeding £38.8 million.

In July, Harry’s lawyers were ordered to disclose documents related to alleged payments for evidence, amid criticism of their approach to financial disclosures.

The court has requested details about the agreement between Harry’s legal team and investigators, with the trial scheduled for January 2025.