LONDON, U.K.: Prince Harry and the other high-profile claimants must make an interim payment of £9.54 million towards the legal costs of the Daily Mail publisher after losing their privacy lawsuits, London's High Court ruled on August 21.

Last month, Judge Matthew Nicklin rejected the case brought by King Charles' younger son, singer Elton John and five other public figures. The claimants accused the Mail newspapers of widespread unlawful activities, including phone hacking, but the judge rejected those allegations.

The latest ruling on legal costs was another setback for Harry and the other claimants. The judge ruled that the remaining legal costs must be paid on an "indemnity basis".

This means that, as the losing parties, Harry and the other claimants must contribute towards Associated's legal costs without the publisher having to prove that the costs were reasonable and proportionate.

After the judge's original ruling, Associated said the decision was a major victory for its newspapers and journalists and "for a free press generally". Harry, 41, described the judgment as a "complete and obvious whitewash".

During a hearing in July, the court was told that Associated had incurred legal costs of £34.5 million (US$45.8 million). Harry and the other claimants, meanwhile, had an insurance policy covering only £16 million.

The Mail publisher is seeking an interim payment of £10 million, while Harry and the six other claimants have offered £8 million.

The court's decision comes days after the surprise announcement that Harry, his wife Meghan and their two children will move to Britain this month from their home in California.

Harry and Meghan stepped down from official royal duties in 2020 when they moved to the United States. They will not return to royal duties and will not receive public money.

During last month's hearing on legal costs, Associated's lawyer Antony White argued that the claimants had made broad and serious "egregious" allegations without enough evidence to support them. He said the allegations had increased the publisher's legal costs.

White also argued that Harry had abused his position and celebrity status through a statement he made after the ruling.

Nicholas Bacon, the lawyer representing the claimants, said in court submissions that Associated's £34.5 million legal bill was "eye-watering" and far above an agreed budget.

Bacon also said reports had suggested that Associated wanted to teach the claimants a lesson. He argued that awarding indemnity costs would therefore be unfair.

Nicklin rejected Harry and the other claimants' lawsuits after an 11-week trial. He said they needed to prove that information published about them had been obtained unlawfully, but they had failed to do so. He said suspicion alone was not enough.

No decision has yet been made on whether Harry and the other claimants will appeal the ruling.