Hugh Grant has settled a High Court claim against the publisher of The Sun newspaper after being advised he risked being liable for £10 million in legal costs if his case proceeded to a trial.
The actor brought legal action against News Group Newspapers (NGN) in relation to The Sun only, alleging he was targeted by journalists and private investigators, having previously settled a claim with the publisher in 2012 relating to the News Of The World.
He was among a number of individuals, including the Duke of Sussex, bringing claims against NGN.
Mr Grant’s claim in relation to The Sun was due to be considered at a trial in January next year, but a preliminary hearing in the litigation against the publisher on Wednesday was told it had recently been settled.
Anthony Hudson KC, representing NGN, told judge Mr Justice Fancourt that there were “currently 42 extant claims … that follows the recent settlement of Mr Grant’s claim”.
David Sherborne, Mr Grant’s barrister, also confirmed in written arguments that the actor had “recently settled” his claim.
NGN has previously denied any unlawful activity took place at The Sun.
In a series of posts on X, Mr Grant said he had been offered “an enormous amount of money” to settle his case, with funds to be “repurposed” for press reform campaign groups like Hacked Off where he is a board member.
He said: “News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused the Sun of doing – phone hacking, unlawful information gathering, landline tapping, the burglary of my flat and office, the bugging of my car, the illegal blagging of medical records, lies, perjury and the destruction of evidence.
“As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court. I don’t want to accept this money or settle. I would love to see all the allegations that they deny tested in court.
“But the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed to trial and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both sides.
“My lawyers tell me that that is exactly what would most likely happen here. Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive. So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10 million in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.”
Mr Grant continued: “Rupert Murdoch has spent over £1 billion in damages to claimants and in lawyers’ fees, settling over 1,500 claims in this way. He seems remarkably determined that there shouldn’t be a trial of the facts.
“Murdoch’s settlement money has a stink and I refuse to let this be hush money. I have spent the best part of 12 years fighting for a free press that does not distort the truth, abuse ordinary members of the public or hold elected MPs to ransom in pursuit of newspaper barons’ personal profit and political power.
“So this money will repurposed via groups like Hacked Off into the general campaign to expose the worst excesses of our oligarch-owned press.”
Mr Grant also thanked his legal team and “the courageous whistle-blowers who came over from the other side, and other brave witnesses who are providing much of the evidence”.
In a May 2023 ruling, Mr Justice Fancourt concluded Mr Grant’s claim could proceed to trial, except for any allegations relating to phone hacking.
The judge found that Mr Grant could have brought a claim for phone hacking sooner, as he had knowledge of it, but that his other allegations would have to be tried.
On Wednesday, lawyers for NGN argued that there should be an initial trial over whether other claims against it, including Harry’s, have been brought too late.
The publisher wants a judge to consider whether those bringing legal action “could with reasonable diligence” have known, more than six years before issuing their challenges, facts that would lead them to discover they had “worthwhile” claims.
Mr Hudson said having this issue considered before a trial of the overall merits of the cases against it was the “most efficient” approach, claiming that 90% of cases against NGN may not reach trial in January.
Lawyers representing Harry and others oppose NGN’s bid for the initial hearing over the issue of timing, arguing it would be “highly disruptive and prejudicial” to those people expecting their cases to be heard next year.
You may also like: Government set to invoke 2008 clause to force airline to operate Rwanda flights