Hugh Grant explains why he had to settle his hacking lawsuit with the Sun

Hugh Grant has spent the better part of 13 years working on issues related to the criminal, unethical and sleazy operations of the British media, specifically the British tabloids. Hugh formed Hacked Off in 2011 to hold the media’s power to account, and publicize the methods being used by the British press. Hugh has also spent years suing various outlets, including those owned by Rupert Murdoch. Well, Hugh has just announced that he settled his lawsuit against the Sun after they made him a very large settlement offer. He used a Twitter thread to explain why he had to (I’ve only made minor edits for space). From Hugh’s Twitter:

For anyone who has been interested in my lawsuit against the Sun, the news is that I’ve had to settle my claim out of court before it gets to trial. A thread:

News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused the Sun of doing – phone hacking, unlawful information gathering, landline tapping, the burglary of my flat and office, the bugging of my car, the illegal blagging of medical records, lies, perjury and the destruction of evidence.

As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court. I don’t want to accept this money or settle. I would love to see all the allegations that they deny tested in court. But the rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed 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 sides.

My lawyers tell me that that is exactly what would most likely happen here. Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers are very expensive. So even if every allegation is proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10 million in costs. I’m afraid I am shying at that fence.

Rupert Murdoch has spent over £1billon in damages to claimants and in lawyers’ fees, settling over 1500 claims in this way. He seems remarkably determined that there shouldn’t be a trial of the facts. Murdoch’s settlement money has a stink and I refuse to let this be hush money. I have spent the best part of 12 years fighting for a free press that does not distort the truth, abuse ordinary members of the public or hold elected MPs to ransom in pursuit of newspaper barons’ personal profit and political power.

So this money will repurposed via groups like Hacked Off into the general campaign to expose the worst excesses of our oligarch-owned press.

[From Hugh Grant’s Twitter]

What the absolute f–k??? “The rules around civil litigation mean that if I proceed 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 sides.” Britain, are you okay? Why is this part of civil litigation law? Add to that, the British media has successfully spent years successfully arguing for limitations on the damages people can seek for things like defamation, harassment, phone tapping and illegal monitoring. British civil law is now completely set up to shelter and protect the media-perpetrators of crimes against citizens/subjects. This actually makes me understand why people like Sienna Miller had to settle out of court too.

As for Hugh… I completely understand his situation and why he’s settled. He hasn’t given up, he’s giving himself a chance to fight another day. Meanwhile, Prince Harry’s trial against the Sun is scheduled for January 2025. I wonder how much money The Sun will offer Harry… at the very last minute, after they’ve spent years smearing him?

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Cover Images.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

20 Responses to “Hugh Grant explains why he had to settle his hacking lawsuit with the Sun”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. ML says:

    At least Hugh was able to fight Murdoch and be a thorn in his side for years until having to make this decision! Remember Sienna Miller? Now both of them have been forced to settle with a much more powerful and extremely wealthy corrupt tabloid. So frustrating, but it’s wonderful that Hugh is still going to be a gadfly.

  2. It Really Is You, Not Me says:

    This rule is also standard in American civil litigation law. The idea is that courts don’t want a plaintiff to hold a defendant hostage and take them to trial because the fees are so enormous. So if defendant offers them something ,and they don’t take it and get less than the settlement, The idea is that plaintiff unfairly racked up the defendants fees, and the courts do not want to encourage that. The downside of that rule which I do think had good intentions is that some plaintiff who really want their case to publicize will need to settle because they’re not willing to settle defendants pretrial offer.

    Good for you for calling attention to this rule and using his cement proceeds for the greater good.

    • Jais says:

      Thank you for explaining the logic behind the law. There has to be a way to amend it though bc this is outrageous. I’m not a law person so I don’t know how but maybe someone better than me could figure it out. It just feels tragic that media barons like murdoch and Rothemere are getting away with crimes and victims can’t even take it to court bc they’re not as rich as the media barons who are making all this money from the very act of exploiting their victims’ lives. How much money has murdoch made off of people like Hugh and Harry? And then they use that very money to prevent them from even going to courts.

      • Becks1 says:

        that law is not absolute although it may be a guideline or state dependent. My husband is a civil litigator and takes cases to court and sometimes loses or just gets less than whatever was settled and they’re not paying attorneys’ fees for the other side. Maybe if it was egregious and perceived to be abusing the system, but not as a matter of course.

      • Jais says:

        Hmm. Interesting. I’m trying to follow. So you mean in the US this law is not absolute? But it is absolute in the uk? Or just in the uk regarding media cases😂? I’m trying to keep everything strait but it feels complex.

    • Lorelei says:

      Yes, it sounds like there are times when this law should be applied to discourage frivolous lawsuits, but the unintended consequence of people like Murdoch being able to keep their sins from being aired in court outweighs any good that the rule might provide, IMO.
      It’s great if it serves as a deterrent to people like Samantha Markle, but horrifying that Hugh was subjected to all of those abuses for years but they’ll never get on the record, legally speaking, because of the same law.

      Britain really does seem dead set on protecting their bottom-feeding tabloids via any means necessary, Jesus.

  3. sevenblue says:

    From where I stand, UK seems like an intentionally broken country. The cases of Hugh, Harry and all the other victims should be a criminal case, but since the legal system isn’t working correctly, they chose to pursue these issues in front of civil courts. It makes sense to settle in civil court since the purpose is being paid for the damages. However, in these cases, they were victims of a crime by the british media. I think, in the case Harry won, they lowballed the settlement amount. If they offer big money to Harry, I am not sure if his lawyers advise him to continue the case. It would be financially unsound to pay for Murdoch’s lawyers’ fees when you are the victim and won the case. I hope they would be stupid enough to give a low settlement amount to Harry.

  4. Cessily says:

    This is why Prince Harry suing is so important, he has shown a spotlight on this entire thing and just how horrible it truly is. The tabloid press truly have control of that country.

  5. Monika says:

    The Sun throws everything at the claimants to avoid this going to court. There are politicians involved in this litigation. Chris Huhne, a former liberal democrat minister, had to settle his claim against the Sun at the end of last year. Chris Hunhe alleged in his statement after he settled that his case was not only about gossip but also an attempt of political influence. He said that he had to settle as it would have been financially to risky for him to continue with his claim. The same as with Hugh Grant. You cannot blame them for doing this.

    There are still other politicians involved in this claim. The Sun will avoid at all cost these claims going to court.

    In regards to Prince Harry’s claims. I believe this is much more than about money and they Sun has to offer him something else such as a public apology or acknowledgement of wrong doing. I do not believe the Sun will give this to him. I hope he has good advice and makes the right decision for him.

  6. Jks says:

    This is so infuriating! Completely understand Hugh Grant but ugh!!!!!!!

  7. Eurydice says:

    It’s good that he’s coming right out to explain the situation and how the law is allowing The Sun to buy its way out of wrongdoing.

  8. Louisa says:

    Was very surprised and disappointed to hear this news earlier. However after hearing why Hugh had to settle it is completely understanding. And infuriating!

  9. Concern Fae says:

    The rules really need to be amended so that settlements without an admission of guilt don’t trigger such drastic penalties for the plaintiff.

  10. Amy Bee says:

    Royalists were sneering at Harry for settling the remainder of his case against the Mirror but based on Hugh’s comments alone, it would seem that Harry got a very huge sum from the the Mirror to settle. The British legal system is rigged in favour of the institutions instead of the people and that’s why Hugh had to settle. I don’t blame him for doing so.

    • sevenblue says:

      Harry already won that case. There was no point for him to continue with other articles. The Mirror accepted they did illegal things unlike when they deny after a settlement. It was Mirror that said they are not gonna settle and try other articles too.

    • Jais says:

      Yeah, the mirror case went to trial and Harry won. I’ve seen royal reporters questioning whether Harry will actually make it to trial with the sun and from what I can tell it’s bc the sun can afford to offer Harry a massive settlement before trial. I don’t think mirror group was as flush to be able to do that. They just offered hugh 10 mill. What if they offer Harry three times that? I’m not saying Harry wants to settle or will settle. But it sounds like even winning can be financially devastating.

      • Jais says:

        Just saying that I think I misunderstood. 10$ million is what Hugh thinks he may have to pay in lawyers fees and that was not the settlement amount he was offered. I don’t know what he was offered. It’s if the damages the judge awards is 1$ less than what the sun offered him is what decides who will pay the sun’s court fees. If I’m understanding correctly🙄

  11. Mads says:

    I suspect he’s settled for around the £4 to £5 million mark, which will cover his current legal fees and a substantial sum left over. Harry has deep pockets and, even if he wins the case, he’s going to take a huge financial hit because I don’t think the court is going to award damages anywhere near £1 million (it didn’t in the case against the Mirror), let alone the offer extended to Grant and, I assume, Harry. I know Harry is determined to have his day in court with these vultures, whether it’s financially acceptable is another matter entirely.

    • sevenblue says:

      We don’t know how much Harry actually got from Mirror. The decision was only for the articles tried in front of the court. There were a lot more articles Harry’s team was alleging as the product of illegal means. So, he might have got £1 million or more as final amount. But, I remember he got his lawyers fee paid.

  12. Square2 says:

    Unless the settlement comes with the newspaper company ADMITTING their illegal actions & an apology, I don’t think Harry would settle even with a huge amount of money.