Link: Daily Mail
But Sir Peter ruled: 'I am in no doubt that the claimant's submission that his costs liability should be subject to a reduction of 50-60% is unsupportable.' He added 'for the avoidance of doubt' that the duke's suggestion that his case had been 'partially successful' was 'without merit'.
The judge did agree with Harry's lawyers that the Home Office had committed certain breaches of legal rules, but he said these did 'not alter the fact that the claimant comprehensively lost'.
Sir Peter ordered the duke to pay 90 per cent of the public's legal bill. The exact sum was not specified.
(snip)
The judge also refused Harry's request for permission to appeal, saying his application was 'largely a recapitulation' of the case he had already lost.
He said there were 'no compelling reasons' to allow an appeal to proceed. Sir Peter said that just because the case concerned 'protection of life' did not give Harry a compelling reason, because otherwise 'there would be vast numbers' of appeals in the immigration courts under the Refugee Convention.
Following the previous ruling in February, a spokesperson for the duke said he intended to challenge the judgment, adding that Harry 'hopes he will obtain justice from the Court of Appeal'.
142