Prince Harry and six other prominent figures must now await a decision on how large an initial costs payment they will be required to hand over to the publisher, with a ruling anticipated in the week commencing August 17.The group are confronting a legal costs bill running into the millions after their High Court claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail was thrown out earlier this month.The Duke of Sussex, alongside Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Sadie Frost, Liz Hurley and Sir Simon Hughes, had brought allegations of unlawful information-gathering against Associated Newspapers Limited.ANL vigorously contested the accusations throughout an 11-week trial in London.Prince Harry and six other prominent figures must now await a decision on how large an initial costs payment they will be required to hand over to the publisher, with a ruling anticipated in the week commencing August 17. | GETTYOn July 7, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled against all seven claimants, dismissing every case.The matter returned to the High Court this week for two days of argument over who should bear the financial burden.ANL’s total legal costs were revealed to be in excess of £34 million, a figure Mr Justice Nicklin described as “unprecedented” for a media law dispute at High Court level.The two sides remain far apart on what the initial payment should be.The publisher is seeking more than £9.9 million as an interim sum ahead of further detailed costs hearings, with its barrister Antony White KC stating in written submissions that there was “no dispute that Associated is entitled to payments on account of its costs.”Lawyers representing the seven claimants countered that the appropriate figure should be just above £7.9 million. | GETTYLawyers representing the seven claimants countered that the appropriate figure should be just above £7.9 million.Nicolas Bacon KC, acting for the group, argued in written submissions that ANL’s demand was “manifestly excessive.”ANL’s legal team pressed for costs to be assessed on an indemnity rather than standard basis, which would significantly increase the amount the publisher could recover.The distinction between the two costs bases carries major financial consequences for the claimants.Under standard assessment rules, a judge would need good reason to award costs beyond those set out in court-approved budgets.This is a safeguard that does not apply when costs are calculated on an indemnity basis.Bacon KC noted that ANL’s incurred costs of nearly £34.5 million already surpass its approved budget by more than £18.6 million.The seven claimants hold combined insurance cover totalling £16.2 million.Should the court order payment on the stricter indemnity basis, that cover would fall well short of their total exposure, Bacon KC warned in written submissions.He cautioned that the shortfall could amount to “many millions of pounds,” making the question of which costs basis the judge adopts potentially the most consequential financial issue in the entire dispute.Mr Justice Nicklin confirmed that the claimants will be required to make the interim payment by August 28.”They are going to be paying a sum of money that I will confirm in the judgment,” the judge stated at the conclusion of Thursday’s hearing.The court was told the interim figure would be a “global” amount that could then be divided among the seven individuals.The judge’s written ruling, expected in the week of August 17, will settle both the size of the initial payment and whether costs are assessed on a standard or indemnity basis.