The hearing is now under way.

Mr Justice Nicklin is overseeing proceedings at London’s High Court today.

Prince Harry is in court to hear the case.

David Sherborne, a seasoned lawyer who is no stranger to high-publicity cases, will be representing Prince Harry and other public figures against Associated Newspapers.

Last year, the prominent barrister represented Coleen Rooney during the blockbuster “Wagatha Christie” trial brought by Rebekah Vardy.

Back in 2020 he represented Johnny Depp in his libel suit against the publisher of The Sun, and also includes Diana, Princess of Wales, Hollywood actor Michael Douglas and model Kate Moss among his previous clients.

Katie Spencer, our arts and entertainment correspondent, was outside the High Court this morning as the Duke of Sussex made a surprise appearance.

She said: “Absolutely nobody was expecting this because really there is no need for Prince Harry to be appearing in court this week.

“This is a very initial hearing, we’re expecting the Daily Mail basically to this week attempt to get this hearing thrown out of court.

“I tried to put a question to him about why he was here today and he ignored me pretty much and just said good morning.

“But he’s gone inside, he clearly does want to make it known that this is very important to him.

“He didn’t actually need to go through the main entrance here.”

The Duke of Sussex has arrived at the High Court in London in the last few moments, ahead of the start of the four-day hearing.

He is one of seven claimants bringing a lawsuit against Associated Newspapers – the publisher behind the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline.

His attendance had not been billed beforehand.

The publisher of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and the MailOnline has repeatedly denied allegations of breaches of privacy that have been brought about by a number of high-profile claimants.

It will seek over four days of hearings at the High Court in London to have the case thrown out.

Today, a preliminary hearing will consider legal arguments on both sides, and a judge will decide whether the case should move forward.

Associated Newspapers has said it “utterly and unambiguously” denies all allegations in the group litigation.

It described the allegations as “preposterous smears”, and claimed the legal action is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.

Who are Associated Newspapers?

One of Britain’s biggest media publishers, Associated Newspapers Ltd (ANL) is the publisher of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline.

Full details of the claims have not yet been made public, following an earlier application by Associated Newspapers who say the claimants’ use of information is in breach of a restriction order made by Lord Justice Leveson.

As a result the judge has sealed the claims until that issue has been resolved, which will be part of the public hearing.

Prince Harry’s lawsuit against the publisher of the Daily Mail newspaper – Associated Newspapers Ltd – will begin at the High Court in London today.

The 38-year-old royal is bringing the action along with six others – actresses Elizabeth Hurley and Sadie Frost, Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence of Clarendon OBE.

The high-profile claimants have accused Associated Newspapers of phone-tapping and other breaches of privacy, such as bugging their homes, cars and paying police for sensitive information.

Lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of “highly distressing” evidence revealing they had been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by Associated Newspapers.

Accusations include:

• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes
• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls while they were taking place
• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information
• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception
• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation

Associated Newspapers have strongly denied the allegations, describing them as “preposterous smears”, and claiming the legal action taken is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.