Liz Hurley Testifies in High-Profile Privacy Lawsuit Against Daily Mail

Actress Liz Hurley has testified in a high-profile lawsuit against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), the publisher of the Daily Mail, alleging unlawful information gathering, including phone tapping and bugging her home. Hurley, 60, is one of seven claimants, including Prince Harry and Sir Elton John, who are suing ANL over claims that their privacy was violated through illegal means between 2002 and 2011. During her testimony at the Royal Courts of Justice, Hurley described the alleged actions as a "brutal invasion of privacy," stating that she was "devastated" upon learning that her landlines had been tapped and microphones placed on her windows.

iNewsLiz Hurley ‘devastated’ by allegation of phone tapping, court toldThe Sydney Morning HeraldiNews

In her written evidence, Hurley detailed the extent of the alleged violations, claiming that ANL's actions included recording her live telephone conversations and stealing medical information regarding her pregnancy with her son, Damian. She expressed profound distress over the invasion of her privacy, stating, “It represented the ultimate violation of privacy.” Hurley became visibly emotional during her testimony, crying as she recounted the hurtful articles published about her, which she described as “damaging” and “unpleasant.”

Liz Hurley ‘devastated’ by allegation of phone tapping, court told

Hurley explained that she did not initially complain about the articles because she believed they were "in essence true," attributing the leaks to sources outside her immediate circle. She emphasized, “Yes, there were leaks, but they were not from my friends,” indicating her belief that the information was obtained through illicit means rather than personal betrayal.

Liz Hurley ‘devastated’ by allegation of phone tapping, court told

ANL has strongly denied the allegations, with Antony White KC, representing the publisher, arguing that the claims are "unsupported by the evidence before the court" and "entirely baseless." He suggested that the claimants, including Hurley, are attempting to present a case based on discredited information. White contended that the journalists involved had legitimate sources for their articles, asserting that the claims were brought too late and lacked substantial evidence.

Liz Hurley ‘devastated’ by allegation of phone tapping, court told

The trial, which is expected to conclude in March, has broader implications for press freedom and privacy rights in the UK. The case highlights ongoing tensions between public figures and the media regarding the boundaries of privacy and the methods used to gather information. Hurley’s testimony, alongside that of other high-profile claimants, underscores the emotional toll of alleged media invasions on personal lives.

iNews

• “The Mail’s unlawful acts against me involve landline tapping my phones and recording my live telephone conversations, placing surreptitious mics on my home windows, stealing my medical information when I was pregnant with Damian and other monstrous, staggering things.” — Liz Hurley, Actress

iNews

• “I had not come across this brutal invasion of privacy in either of my two battles with the other newspapers. I felt crushed. It represented the ultimate violation of privacy.” — Liz Hurley, Actress

iNews

• “There’s a vast difference – both indefensible – between someone intercepting a voicemail and someone listening in on every single phone call in your home and concealing a tape recorder and attaching it to your home BT wire to record your live telephone conversations.” — Liz Hurley, Actress

iNews

• “Not only are they entirely baseless but, as with the other claimants’ claims, they are borne of an attempt by members of the claimants’ research team, adopted by Ms Hurley and her legal representatives, to present a case of UIG against Associated based entirely on spurious and, or, discredited information.” — Antony White KC, ANL Representative

Liz Hurley ‘devastated’ by allegation of phone tapping, court told

The outcome of this case may set significant precedents regarding the legality of information gathering practices by media organizations in the UK.

iNews