Prince Harry in eleventh hour talks to settle High Court battle with Sun owner ahead of trial

Prince Harry could be on the brink of a settlement with the publisher of The Sun newspaper, just as their High Court battle is due to start.

The Duke of Sussex is suing Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers (NGN) over claims of unlawful information gathering by journalists and investigators across more than 15 years.

Harry says it is his “mission” to bring British tabloids to account, and this legal contest with NGN has been hotly anticipated.

Harry, who is suing alongside Lord Tom Watson, says not only was his privacy invaded for years but he believes there was a corporate-level cover-up of the truth.

NGN is fighting the case, and particularly denies any unlawful activities at The Sun.

As the case was due to start on Tuesday, Harry’s lawyer David Sherborne twice asked for adjournments, until 11.30am and then until after lunch.

At 2pm, he asked for a further delay until Wednesday morning, and said the application is backed by NGN lawyers as well.

Mr Sherborne said extra time “hopefully may be productive” and suggested he is limited in what he can reveal in open court.

“If we start the case and I open, that may risk having an effect on the likelihood of being able to resolve this”, he said.

Anthony Hudson KC, for NGN, backed the delay, saying: “We do believe in the long run, or even medium run, this will be of significant benefit to the court.

“We are very concerned if we don’t have these two hours, something that is capable of being achieved may not be achieved.

Lawyers obliquely suggested the “time difference” with California - where Harry now lives with wife Meghan - is a complicating factor in negotiations.

And Mr Hudson, referring to the “settlement dynamic”, added: “My client is extremely concerned that an opportunity presenting itself today may be less attractive once the trial has started.”

The case is anticipated to cover allegations of high-level knowledge of unlawful activities at NGN’s British tabloids, as well as claims of a cover-up – all denied by the publisher.

Once a trial starts, journalists in court will have access for the first time to written submissions which set out the competing arguments in the case, and some of the evidence that is likely to emerge.

Mr Justice Fancourt refused to agree to a third adjournment until Wednesday and told Mr Sherborne to get on with opening his case, saying the parties could have entered settlement negotiations earlier.

But in a dramatic and highly unusual stand-off, both sides in the legal dispute told the judge they wanted to appeal against his decision not to allow a delay.

Mr Hudson had asked the judge to hear submissions in private about why a delay would help, but the judge snapped back: “I’m not having secret hearings about goings on behind the scenes.”

Mr Sherborne then told the court: “I’ve been instructed on behalf of both parties and the defendants to ask for leave to appeal in terms of asking your lordship to adjourn until tomorrow morning.

“It is not an application I make lightly.”

See also: A complete timeline of Prince Harry's legal battle with the Sun

The judge refused leave to appeal, but noted that an adjournment until the morning would now happen by default as the sets of lawyers took their point to the Court of Appeal directly.

The clearly-displeased judge then left the court, with the hearing expected to resume in the morning.

Harry has been on a crusade against the British tabloid media for years, with a victorious case already brought against the Mirror Group Newspapers and a case pending against the publishers of Daily Mail.

In the case against News Group Newspapers, he alleges journalists and agents for both the News of the World and The Sun invaded his privacy between 1996 and 2011.

The Duke put forward 200 articles that he said came from unlawful newsgathering techniques, such as ‘blagging’ confidential information.

Around 30 of those articles are set to be poured over in detail if the trial takes place.

Harry had reported rejected previous attempts to settle the case out of court, burning through millions in legal costs as the case crawled through the High Court, and in December he said in New York that he is seeing “truth and accountability”.

He is “the last person that can actually achieve that”, he told a crowd.

NGN has settled civil claims brought by around 1,300 people who said they had fallen to the so-called media “dark arts”.

Settlements and legal costs are thought to have topped £1 billion and there have been acceptance of wrongdoing within the News of the World.

But throughout, NGN has denied the same kind of behaviour was going on at The Sun.

Recent cases to be settled were brought by actress Sienna Miller, ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne, comedian Catherine Tate, radio presenter Chris Moyles, Spice Girl Melanie Chisholm, former Boyzone member Shane Lynch and actor Mathew Horne.

Lord Watson claims he had been the victim of intrusion from journalists within Murdoch’s empire between 2009 and 2011, when he was a senior political figure investigating the phone hacking scandal.

Ahead of Tuesday’s hearing, a spokesperson for NGN said: “In 2011, an apology was published by NGN to victims of voicemail interception by the News Of The World. The company publicly committed to paying financial compensation and since then has paid settlements to those with claims.

“In some cases, particularly those relating to The Sun, it has made commercial sense, and in accordance with common litigation practice, for the parties to come to a financial settlement without NGN accepting liability.

“These civil proceedings have been running for many years and concern only historical events from between 14 and 29 years ago.“

NGN said it “strongly denies” hacked Lord Watson or acting unlawfully, while it was set to argue both claimants have run out of time to bring their cases.

“Both claimants allege unlawful destruction of emails by News International between 2010-2011”, the spokesperson added.

“This allegation is wrong, unsustainable, and is strongly denied.”