Harbour Underwriting’s Rocco Pirozzolo was quoted in Insurance Business UK and City AM on the dispute insurance questions raised by Mr Justice Nicklin’s costs ruling in the privacy claims brought against Associated Newspapers by Prince Harry and six other claimants.
The claims, brought in 2022 by Prince Harry, Baroness Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost and Sir Simon Hughes, were dismissed in July 2026. On 21 August, Mr Justice Nicklin ordered the claimants to pay Associated Newspapers’ costs on the indemnity basis and ordered a payment on account of £9,544,355. Associated Newspapers puts its total costs at around £34.5m. The claimants are reported to have held £16.2m of adverse costs cover.
As Rocco told Insurance Business UK, the size of the gap does not by itself show that too little cover was arranged. “Insurers react to the request made for cover, and it seems that the cover of £16.2m was built and incrementally increased by reference to the approved budgets and the costs information Associated Newspapers provided.”
An exchange recorded in the judgment shows that the issue of the adequacy of the level of cover arose during the litigation. On 5 November 2025, the claimants asked Associated Newspapers to confirm that it would not seek to recover above its approved budget, a figure the court had set at just over £13m. Associated Newspapers did not accept, and the claimants made no application to the court.
Likely shortfall
The following month, Senior Master Cook observed that the claimants might need to reassess their cover as costs continued to mount ahead of trial. Rocco told Insurance Business UK that it was questionable whether a figure of £34.5m would have been contemplated at that stage, or that the additional capacity would have been available.
The £34.5m is the figure Associated Newspapers has claimed, and is unlikely to be the figure it recovers. Mr Justice Nicklin said he had real concerns about whether all of the sums now claimed were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.
Even so, Rocco believes a shortfall is likely. On an illustrative 35% reduction, recoverable costs of £22.42m would leave £6.22m uninsured. “Associated Newspapers would then be able to pursue the claimants personally for this shortfall,” he said. Costs are ordinarily payable within 14 or 28 days of an order, which raises the question of whether the claimants could find their share in that time.
The amount Associated Newspapers ultimately recovers will now be determined by detailed assessment before a costs judge, unless the parties reach agreement first. That process will test, phase by phase, whether the costs claimed were reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. Mr Justice Nicklin recognised a real danger that an assessment in this case would be lengthy, expensive and contentious, though he held that this was no reason to replace it with a cap. He also left open the possibility of Associated Newspapers applying for further payments on account in the meantime.
On whether the indemnity award might itself put the cover at risk, Rocco does not believe the ruling crosses that threshold. “Although the wording of the policy would need to be considered, in my view, the awarding of indemnity costs would not affect the cover responding to pay Associated Newspapers’ costs,” he said. “Mr Justice Nicklin was critical of the conduct of the case, but he did not find dishonesty or improper conduct by the insured claimants themselves.”
What it might mean for premiums
Speaking to City AM on whether decisions of this kind could push premiums up, Rocco said the ruling gives the market something to think about. “Once cover is in place, the insurer has no control over how a case is run. Given that, perhaps pricing should be increased to reflect the risk of indemnity costs being ordered.”
Writing on LinkedIn afterwards, Rocco said that the case is a reminder of how important it is to get the level of cover right at the outset and to keep it under review as costs develop. “Whether the claimants will face a shortfall between their adverse costs cover and the costs ordered, and, if so, how much it proves to be, remains to be seen,” he said. “However, the claimants are now facing a personal exposure that they probably thought did not exist when this action went to trial.”
You can read the Insurance Business article here and the City AM article here.
