Claims against Mirror publisher should be allowed to continue, High Court told

Dozens of people’s claims against the publisher of the Mirror over allegations of unlawful information gathering should be allowed to continue as they were not “triggered” to believe they had grounds to sue, the High Court has been told.

A group of 57 people are suing Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), with five cases being used in a preliminary trial to determine whether they should be dismissed as they were brought too late.

The five cases are those of publicist Melanie Cantor, PR agent Murray Harkin, model Paul Sculfor, dancer Camilla Sacre-Dallerup and designer Patrick Cox.

Lawyers for MGN told the preliminary trial on Tuesday that the publisher “accepts the allegations of wrongdoing against it” and “concealed its voicemail interception and other unlawful information gathering at the time that it was taking place”, but the claims should be dismissed as they could have been brought earlier.

Barristers for the quintet argue that the claims were brought in time, as the figures would not have known they had a potential legal claim against MGN until being “triggered” as victims of unlawful information gathering several years later.

The law states that legal action related to unlawful information gathering must be launched within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.

The quintet began their claims between June 2021 and January 2022, meaning they had to have learned they could have a claim between June 2015 and January 2016.

Hugh Tomlinson KC, for the five, said in written submissions that they were not “triggered” into believing they had been victims of unlawful information gathering in relation to articles about them until between April 2018 and November 2020, within the six-year period.

He continued that they previously believed that either private information had come from “leaks” from friends and family, no private information about them was published, or they received police or legal advice that they did not have “worthwhile” claims.

Mr Tomlinson said: “If a claimant reasonably believed that theirs was not an unlawful information gathering case, because they believed that the information was published due to a ‘leak’, then they were not ‘triggered’ to investigate at all.

“‘Reasonable diligence’ did not require them to investigate the matter further unless something came to light to cast doubt on the ‘leaking’ explanation.”

In court, he said: “If they were looking for it, they could have found it, but there was no basis for them to look for it.”

The barrister said that Ms Cantor was previously an agent and publicist for high-profile figures, including model and presenter Ulrika Jonsson, and Mr Harkin previously ran a PR agency with the Duchess of Edinburgh.

Mr Sculfor “became of interest to the tabloids” due to his relationships with actresses Jennifer Aniston and Cameron Diaz, while Ms Sacre-Dallerup took part in the first series of Strictly Come Dancing in 2004 and won the show in 2008.

Mr Tomlinson also said that Mr Cox became friends with figures Sir Elton John and his husband, David Furnish, through his work as a designer, who later informed him he could have a claim against MGN.

But Lord Wolfson KC, for MGN, said in his written arguments that “even fairly basic knowledge… of the phone hacking scandal” would have been enough for the individuals to know they had a claim before 2015.

He said: “A firm belief that MGN had committed no such wrongs could not have been reasonably held after knowledge of, at the latest, the guilty pleas of MGN journalists to phone hacking in 2013 and/or the admissions of liability by MGN in September 2014.”

He continued: “The targeting of non-famous individuals, and the friends and family and other associates of celebrities, has been a major part of the phone hacking scandal as reported in the media from the very beginning, and any reasonably attentive claimant would have become aware of it.”

Lord Wolfson continued that “a brief internet search” could have helped establish whether someone could have a claim against the publisher, as well as coverage of legal action launched by others against MGN over unlawful information gathering before 2015.

The trial before Mr Justice Fancourt is due to conclude in February, with a judgment expected in writing at a later date.