Prince Harry has settled the remaining parts of his phone hacking claim against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), his barrister has told the High Court.
David Sherborne, for the Duke of Sussex, said MGN will pay Harry “a substantial additional sum by way of damages” as well as his legal costs.
Harry, 39, sued MGN for damages, claiming journalists at its publications were linked to methods including phone hacking, so-called “blagging” – gaining information by deception – and use of private investigators for unlawful activities.
In December, a judge ruled that phone hacking became “widespread and habitual” at MGN titles in the late 1990s and was practised “even to some extent” during the Leveson Inquiry into press standards in 2011.
Mr Justice Fancourt also concluded that Harry’s phone was hacked “to a modest extent” by MGN, awarding him £140,600 in damages.
33 articles in Harry’s claim were examined during the trial last year, with 15 articles found to have been the product of unlawful information gathering.
A further 115 articles were in his claim, which may have been the subject of a further trial.
However, during a hearing in London on Friday, his barrister David Sherborne confirmed a settlement had been reached between the duke and MGN.
Mr Sherborne said the publisher would make an interim payment of £400,000.
Reading a statement on the Duke of Sussex’s behalf outside the High Court in December, his lawyer David Sherborne said: “Today is a great day for truth, as well as accountability.
“The court has ruled that unlawful and criminal activities were carried out at all three mirror group newspaper titles – the Mirror, the Sunday Mirror and the People – on a habitual and widespread basis for over more than a decade.
“I’d like to thank my legal team for so successfully dismantling the sworn testimony of Mirror Group’s senior executives, legal department and journalists who at least turned up, unlike their colleagues, who were perhaps too afraid to do so.
“This case is not just about hacking – it is about a systemic practice of unlawful and appalling behaviour, followed by cover-ups and destruction of evidence, the shocking scale of which can only be revealed through these proceedings.”
MGN contested Harry’s claim and denied that any of the articles complained of resulted from unlawful interception of voicemail.
Following the ruling, an MGN spokesperson said in December: “We welcome today’s judgment that gives the business the necessary clarity to move forward from events that took place many years ago. Where historical wrongdoing took place, we apologise unreservedly, have taken full responsibility and paid appropriate compensation.”