Hugh Grant has settled a High Court claim against the publisher of The Sun for “an enormous sum of money”.
The Notting Hill actor, 63, had been suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) along with Prince Harry, alleging the newspaper used phone hacking, theft and “blagging” to obtain confidential information about them.
NGN strongly denies the allegations.
Grant, a founding member of the Hacked Off pressure group which calls for tighter controls on the press, confirmed he had reached an out-of-court settlement but insisted it was not “hush money”.
His and Harry’s cases were among more than 40 scheduled to go to trial in January, but today the High Court was told Mr Grant had reached a settlement.
Hugh Grant is pictured outside the High Court in London on April 27 last year.
The star of films including Love Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral later wrote on to keep this matter out of court.
He said, “I don’t want to take this money or settle,” but added, “Civil litigation rules mean that if I go to trial and the court awards me damages that are even one cent less than the settlement offer , I would have to pay the legal costs of both parties.’
Mr Grant claimed he could face a legal bill of £10m and said: “I’m afraid I’m shy of that fence.”
But he added: “The money from the Murdoch deal stinks and I refuse to see this as hush money.”
He pledged to donate the money to continue his 12-year crusade “fighting for a free press.”
The Duke of Sussex, who recently vowed to ‘slay dragons’ after winning a case against Mirror newspapers, is continuing his lawsuit against The Sun alongside dozens of celebrities and former politicians who claim their private information was attacked.
Grant previously filed a lawsuit against NGN in relation to the now-defunct News of the World tabloid, which was settled in 2012, a year after Rupert Murdoch closed the newspaper following a public backlash over phone hacking.
NGN has always rejected allegations of wrongdoing by The Sun staff, having settled more than 1,300 cases – plus another 300 or so through its own compensation scheme – without admitting any liability in relation to that document.
The High Court heard that legal costs in the current case, which has been running for years and is still months away from trial, had reached £30 million by September 2020.
Anthony Hudson, the newspaper group’s KC, said the litigation had “placed an enormous burden on judicial resources” and that 53 pre-trial hearings had been held so far. He asked Judge Fancourt to consider ordering a separate trial before the main trial to determine whether the plaintiffs had run out of time to present their claims.
David Sherborne, on behalf of Harry and the other claimants, objected to this, saying it would be “highly disturbing and damaging” and “makes no sense”.
The judge will rule on the request at a later date.
The Duke of Sussex is pictured outside the High Court in London on March 30 last year.
Last year, Judge Fancourt dismissed part of Grant’s case, ruling that his allegations about phone hacking had been brought years too late.
Mr Grant was allowed to pursue his claim relating to other allegations of illegal information collection.
In a statement, the NGN spokesperson said: ‘In 2011, NGN apologized unreservedly to the victims of News of the World’s interception of voicemails.
‘Since then, NGN has paid financial compensation to those who submit appropriate claims.
‘As we reach the end of the litigation, NGN is drawing a line under the issues in dispute, some of which date back more than 20 years.
‘In some cases, it has made commercial sense for both parties to reach an agreement before trial to resolve the matter.
‘There are a number of disputed claims still being heard in the civil courts, some of which seek to involve The Sun. The Sun accepts no responsibility or admits any allegations.
‘A judge recently ruled that parts of Mr Grant’s claim were out of time and we have reached an agreement to resolve the rest of the case.
‘This has been done without admission of liability. It will be in the financial benefit of both parties not to go to an expensive trial.’