[RandFan]

I hope The Mail get full costs awarded with interest. This was one of the most expensive cases in modern times.

Time for the celebs to cough up. They tried to play the victim and destroy a newspaper.

[Pilsner]

I don't follow London Tabloids. And whatever the Daily Mail may have been when Heath, or even Thatcher, were PM, it is certainly a functional tabloid these days.

So what did the judge actually rule? The snippet I saw said that the Court found all the stories complained of were "lawfully sourced." That seems a long way from the Court finding that "the Daily Mail did not unlawfully access the voice mail of the Plaintiffs."

And just what does "lawfully sourced" mean when suing an UK Newspaper? If the paper hacks voicemail, gets a scoop unknown to the public, then goes and investigates the matter, conducts interviews it would not have known to conduct without the voicemail hacking, then publishes a story based on the interviews, was the story "lawfully sourced?"