Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

The Claimants' applications to rely on further hearsay evidence were refused due to serious and deliberate procedural default, lack of good reason for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the Defendant. Relief from sanctions to call Mr Burrows as a witness was granted only on a strictly limited basis, confined to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE; Claimant: Elizabeth Hurley; Claimant: Sir Elton John CH CBE; Claimant: David Furnish; Claimant: Sir Simon Hughes; Claimant: Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex; Claimant: Sadie Frost Law; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Evidentiary Applications During Trial
Outcome
Claimants' application to rely on further hearsay evidence refused; application to call Mr Burrows as a witness granted on strictly limited terms; application to treat Mr Burrows as hostile not determined but would have been refused.
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Relief From Sanctions, Witness Examination, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Evidence Hearsay Evidence Relief From Sanctions Witness Examination Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE

Claimant

Elizabeth Hurley

Claimant

Sir Elton John CH CBE

Claimant

David Furnish

Claimant

Sir Simon Hughes

Claimant

Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex

Claimant

Sadie Frost Law

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Judgment on Evidentiary Applications During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to permit late reliance on further hearsay statements by the Claimants
  2. 2 Whether to grant Claimants permission to call and examine Mr Gavin Burrows as a witness despite earlier strategic decisions
  3. 3 Appropriate procedural route for examination of Mr Burrows

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants' applications to rely on further hearsay evidence were refused due to serious and deliberate procedural default, lack of good reason for the delay, and substantial prejudice to the Defendant. Relief from sanctions to call Mr Burrows as a witness was granted only on a strictly limited basis, confined to the scope of existing hearsay statements and subject to rigorous controls, because the interests of justice and the seriousness of the allegations warranted a narrow departure from the ordinary consequences of the Claimants' tactical choices.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application to rely on further hearsay evidence refused; application to call Mr Burrows as a witness granted on strictly limited terms; application to treat Mr Burrows as hostile not determined but would have been refused.

Orders

  • Burrows Further Hearsay Application refused.
  • Claimants permitted to call Mr Burrows as a witness only for oral evidence confined to the subject-matter of existing Civil Evidence Act notice and relevant issues.