David Sherborne, the duke’s barrister, said in the written claim: “The claimant will contend that the information obtained by these private investigators on behalf of Associated and its journalists was unlawfully or illegally obtained, and was known or must have been known to be, or were obviously, to have been so obtained.”
However, Mr Caldecott and Mr Beltrami said in the publisher’s written defence that the duke’s case was “replete with sweeping allegations of serious criminal conduct which lack even the most basic of particulars”.
They said “it is denied that Associated’s journalists widely and habitually carried out, or commissioned the carrying out of, illegal or unlawful information gathering activities”.
A spokesperson from ANL said the publisher “has filed a trenchant defence of its journalism” against the claims.
“In papers submitted to the High Court, the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail On Sunday denied under oath that its journalists had commissioned or obtained information derived from phone hacking, phone tapping, bugging, computer or email hacking or burglary to order,” a statement said.
“Associated also denied claims made by Prince Harry and Baroness Lawrence that it commissioned private investigators Gavin Burrows and Jonathan Rees, as well as claims by Sir Simon Hughes that it commissioned convicted phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire.
“Indeed, it is highly significant that Gavin Burrows has retracted a statement he allegedly gave to the claimants, on which their case appears to be based.”
ANL said it “stands by its previous statements” that the claims are “preposterous and without foundation”.
It added that “the stories concerned, many of which were published 20 or more years ago, and not subject to any complaint at the time, were the product of responsible journalism based on legitimate sources”.
Spokespeople on behalf of the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times declined to comment.
