The Duke of Sussex and six others are bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited.
Lawyers for the Duke of Sussex must hand over documents that relate to alleged payments made for evidence in his legal claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail, a High Court judge has said.
Harry and six others, including actress Liz Hurley, Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish are bringing legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).
They have accused the publisher of conducting or commissioning unlawful activities such as hiring private investigators to tap phones, “blagging” private records, and burglaries to order.
The group also includes actress Sadie Frost, campaigner Baroness Doreen Lawrence and politician Sir Simon Hughes.
ANL denies the allegations and is defending the legal action, previously describing the claims as “lurid” and “simply preposterous”.
At a hearing in May, lawyers for ANL asked the court in London to order the group’s legal team to “search for and disclose any documents that relate to payments, royalties or inducements paid, provided or offered, or any demands or threats made, in order to obtain documents, information or other co-operation”.
Antony White KC, for ANL, said a limited number of documents had been disclosed, which showed that “payments were made or offered” to “procure evidence and invoices”.
In a ruling handed down on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin said: “I am satisfied that documents held by the claimants that can support a case that a witness has been paid or offered other inducement for their evidence, whether directly or indirectly, should be disclosed.
“That is because there is a real prospect that Associated will be able to rely upon this evidence to attack the credibility of such witnesses.
“Ultimately, the issue of whether the payment or inducement does affect the credibility of any witness is a matter to be resolved at trial.”
He added: “In this case, the stance adopted by the claimants has been undermined by their inconsistent and incoherent approach to disclosure of documents relating to payments to potential witnesses and/or other inducements.”
Mr Justice Nicklin also ordered that lawyers for the claimants should conduct searches to identify and hand over documents ANL could rely on “in advancing a case that potential witnesses have been given or offered financial incentives to provide information or evidence in support of allegations” of unlawful information gathering (UIG).
The group bringing the case had asked the judge to order ANL to unredact some of the documents the company had provided for the legal proceedings.
Mr Justice Nicklin ordered that “targeted” un-redactions be made where necessary to assess whether certain journalists had a pattern of engaging in UIG.
He said: “In my judgment, considering Associated’s denials of wrongdoing, the claimants are entitled to explore whether they can advance a case, with a real prospect of success, that the pleaded journalists have a propensity to engage in UIG.”
A trial of the claims is expected to start in January and last for nine weeks.
