Hugh Grant settles High Court claim against the publisher of The Sun for ‘an enormous sum of money’

Hugh Grant has settled a High Court claim against the publisher of The Sun for ‘an enormous sum of money’.

The 63-year-old Notting Hill actor had joined Prince Harry in filing a lawsuit against News Group Newspapers (NGN), claiming the newspaper used land taps, burglaries and ‘scooping’ to obtain confidential information about them.

NGN strongly denies the allegations.

Grant, a founding member of the pressure group Hacked Off, which is pushing for tighter controls on the press, confirmed he had reached an out-of-court settlement but insisted it was not “hush money”.

The cases between him and Harry were among more than forty cases that were due to go to trial in January, but today the High Court was told that Grant had reached a settlement.

The star of films such as Love Actually and Four Weddings and a Funeral later wrote on this case out of court.”

He said: ‘I don’t want to accept this money or settle’, but added: ‘The rules around civil lawsuits mean that if I go to trial, and the court awards me damages that are even a penny less than the settlement offer, I would have to pay the legal costs of both parties.’

Mr Grant claimed he could face a £10million legal bill and said: ‘I’m afraid I’m scared of that fence’.

But he added: “Murdoch’s settlement money stinks and I refuse to let it be hush money.”

He promised 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 the Mirror newspapers, is continuing his claim against The Sun, along with dozens of celebrities and former politicians who claim their private information is being targeted used to be.

Mr 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 the newspaper was closed by Rupert Murdoch following public backlash over phone hacking.

NGN has consistently rejected allegations of misconduct by employees of The Sun, and has settled more than 1,300 cases – plus another around 300 through its own compensation scheme – without admitting any liability in relation to that newspaper.

The High Court heard that legal costs in the current case – which has been ongoing for years and is still months away from going to trial – had reached £30 million by September 2020.

Anthony Hudson, the newspaper group’s QC, said the trial had ‘placed a huge burden on the court’s resources’ and that 53 pre-trial hearings had taken place so far. He asked the judge, Mr Justice Fancourt, to consider ordering a separate trial before the main trial on whether the claimants had run out of time to bring their claims.

David Sherborne, on behalf of Harry and the other claimants, opposed this, saying it would be ‘highly disruptive and damaging’ and ‘makes no sense at all’.

The judge will decide on the request at a later date.

The Duke of Sussex is photographed outside the High Court in London on March 30 last year

Last year, Mr Fancourt dropped part of Mr Grant’s case, ruling that his phone hacking claims had been filed years too late.

Mr Grant was allowed to proceed with his claim in relation to other allegations of unlawful information gathering.

In a statement, the NGN spokesperson said: ‘In 2011, NGN issued an unconditional apology to the victims of the News of the World’s voicemail interception.

‘Since then, NGN has been paying financial compensation to people with justified claims.

“As we reach the end of the litigation, NGN is drawing a line under disputed cases, some of which date back more than two decades.

“In some cases it has made commercial sense for both parties to reach a settlement agreement before trial to resolve the matter.

‘There are still a number of disputed claims pending in the civil courts, with some attempting to involve The Sun. The Sun accepts no liability and makes no concessions to the allegations.

“A judge recently ruled that parts of Mr. Grant’s claim were out of time and we have reached an agreement to settle the remainder of the case.

‘This was done without any admission of liability. It is in the financial interest of both parties not to proceed with a costly process.’