Associated Newspapers argue the article expressed an “honest opinion” and did not cause “serious harm” to Harry’s reputation.<\/p>\n
The duke had tried to have the “honest opinion” defence thrown out, but in a judgement on Friday a High Court judge decided it could be included, and the case should go to trial.<\/p>\n
The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, ruled the publisher had a “real prospect” of arguing its case.<\/p>\n
As a result, the Duke of Sussex has been ordered to pay the newspaper’s costs of \u00a348,447 by 29 December.<\/p>\n
The original article, which was published in 2022, wrote about Harry’s dispute with the Home Office decision to remove his automatic police protection after he stepped down from the working Royal Family.<\/p>\n
Read more:<\/strong> The newspaper headline said, “How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over bodyguards a secret \u2026 then – just minutes after the story broke – his PR machine tried to put positive spin on the dispute.”<\/p>\n The Duke of Sussex believes this is libellous, as it attacked “his honesty and integrity”, his lawyers argue it is inaccurate, and suggest he had “lied” and “cynically” attempted to mislead public opinion.<\/p>\n If a settlement isn’t reached by both parties, the libel trial will be held between May and July next year.<\/p>\n Source: \u00a0
\nPrince Harry ‘unjustifiably treated less favourably than others’ over UK protection<\/a>
\nPrince Harry wins bid for privacy trial against Daily Mail publisher<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n![\"Sky](\"http:\/\/worldjusticenews.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/11\/sky-news-logo-1.png\"){kind=logo}
<\/a> news.sky.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"