Kate Middleton’s name dismissed in Prince Harry’s latest case: How significant is the action?

Prince Harry’s lawsuit against the Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) — publishing group behind the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday — just experienced a familiar name being ruled out of the proceedings.

High Court Justice Nicklin has struck down the appeal to include Kate Middleton’s name in the case, brought to court by seven claimants, one of which is the Duke of Sussex.

While a complete trial is scheduled for January 2026, why does the latest ruling feel like an early loss?

What happened

Attorney representing Prince Harry and his fellow plaintiffs, David Sherborne appealed the court to include a phone hacking reference to Princess Kate — an allegation which stemmed from a private investigator’s findings.

Per GB News, the PI “allegedly showed a journalist commissioning him to carry out a ‘mobile phone conversion’ related to the Princess of Wales, along with a list of ‘family and friends’ contact numbers.”

High Court ruling

Ruling the inclusion overdue, Justice Nicklin has stated, “If the amendment were allowed, it would open up a significant new area of investigation for Associated and it is too late given the proximity of the trial date.”

While there are other details set aside by the judge as well, a dismissal of the future queen’s name could spell trouble for the future of the case.

Previous developments & future claims

In January, the Duke won a “monumental” settlement in his case against Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN).

The victory came in a lawsuit which alleged that the company had illegally obtained private information about Harry from 1996 until 2011 — the initial date going back almost 30 years. While NGN further admitted wrongdoing against Princess Diana, the royal’s mother.

Claiming a triumph in connection with the name of a beloved royal member while the case allowed room for details which occurred a long time ago is evidently a winning formula and the Duke’s legal team would likely want to capitalise on that for future.

However, the pending trial against ANL is not prepared to accommodate it.

As claimants in the latest suit attempted to include older details, part of Judge Nicklin’s 16-page ruling affirmed, “The events took place over 30 years ago. This is not a small area of the case. It is now a substantial dispute of fact…Put bluntly, it has become a complex and involved side-show.”

Furthermore, the court has refused to establish “unlawful information gathering” by Associated group’s employees, while the plaintiffs are allowed to prove “previous examples of alleged unlawful activity by journalists” when they were employed elsewhere — a detail which would significantly increase the workload of Prince Harry’s team, as they would have to go far beyond the evidence they could gather at Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday’s expense.

While he would also not be able to depend on the Kensington camp’s help in the matter, given that the Duke is still not on speaking terms with Prince William and Kate Middleton, unlike the manner in which his late mother’s mention helped him win the previous case.