How could they have known?
Claimants can argue that phone-hacking details were concealed
The publishers of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and Mail Online have failed to deliver what a High Court judge called a “knockout blow” to phone-hacking claims brought by Prince Harry and six other prominent public figures.
Associated Newspapers had argued that the seven must have known they had been the victims of unlawful acts — or they could easily have found out. On that basis, they had brought their claims too late.
But Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this morning that the claimants had “a realistic prospect of persuading the court”, at a future trial, “that this overlooks the reality of what confronted them and applies a large dose of hindsight or reverse engineering”.
His 95-page judgment records evidence of how landline calls could be intercepted. One alleged hacker said he and his accomplice “laughed every time a suspecting victim ordered a sweep, found nothing and had thought it safe to talk”.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to A Lawyer Writes to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.