An invoice of 9.5 million pounds was issued. Prince Harry appealed the case

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the younger son of King Charles III of England, and a group of plaintiffs, including world-famous names, appealed in the privacy case they lost against the publisher of the British tabloid Daily Mail.

Following the decision of the High Court in London in favor of the publisher, the group of seven people, including 42-year-old Prince Harry and musician Elton John, took their legal fight to a higher court.

Sheridans law firm, which is representing the plaintiff group, said in a statement to AFP that an appeal was filed on the grounds that the decision and the provision regarding trial expenses were "legally and factually flawed".

Sheridans announced that the group had made formal applications to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal.

The process is the third and final lawsuit filed by the Duke of Sussex in his legal battle against the British tabloid press.

In August, a month after the Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs in July, it ordered Prince Harry and six people with him to pay £9.5 million (about $13 million) as an initial payment to Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL).

In addition to Elton John, the group includes well-known names such as his wife David Furnish and actors Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost.

The plaintiff group accused the Daily Mail newspaper of placing listening devices in their homes and cars, eavesdropping on phone calls and similar actions that violated the right to privacy.

The newspaper's publisher, ANL, denied all the accusations.

After the 11-week trial, in which Prince Harry personally testified, Judge Matthew Nicklin ruled in favor of the newspaper publisher in July, concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their claims.

Judge Nicklin, who announced the initial payment decision after a two-day additional hearing on trial costs, once again criticized the plaintiff's claims as "speculative".

According to court records, ANL calculated that its defense expenses had reached approximately £34.5 million as of July 9.

In the Supreme Court decision, it was noted that it has not yet been determined how much of this amount the plaintiffs will ultimately be obliged to pay, and that the total amount will be decided in a separate hearing.

In previous information submitted to the court, it was stated that there was a gap between the publisher's total expenses and the plaintiffs' combined insurance cover of £16.2 million.

Judge Nicklin rejected Prince Harry and the other plaintiffs' request to pay costs on the standard basis and accepted ANL's argument for payment on the stricter damages basis.

In the summary of the decision, it was stated that, taking into account the gravity of the accusations and other factors, it was concluded that the case was conducted in a method that was "quite outside the general practice".

In a joint statement after the case was lost, Prince Harry and human rights activist Doreen Lawrence described the judicial decision as a "complete and clear exoneration".

An ANL spokesman welcomed the verdict as "another crushing victory for the Mail newspaper and its journalism."

The publisher's statement noted that the judge's decision offers a devastating critique of the attempt to destroy the reputation of a newspaper and its reporters, editors and managers.

Prince Harry has long held the media responsible for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, in a car accident in Paris in 1997 while trying to escape from the paparazzi.

Prince Harry, officially the Duke of Sussex, and his 45-year-old wife Meghan left England in 2020 due to disagreements within the royal family and abandoned their official royal duties.

The couple moved back to England in August with their seven-year-old son Archie and five-year-old daughter Lilibet.

The appeal comes in the immediate aftermath of the couple's return to the UK.