Sadie Frost’s former lawyer shown ‘no evidence’ against publisher, court told
Ms Frost is one of seven people taking legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited.
Sadie Frost’s former solicitor has told the High Court that they were not told she had a potential claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail several years before she launched legal action.
Ms Frost is one of seven people taking legal action against Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL), including the Duke of Sussex, Sir Elton John and actress Liz Hurley, over claims of unlawful information gathering.
ANL has strongly denied wrongdoing and is defending the claims, including on the grounds that the claims were brought too late.
The law states that legal action related to unlawful information gathering must be launched within six years of someone discovering they could have a claim.
The group began their claims in October 2022, meaning they had to have learned they could have a claim after October 2016.
On Monday, the 16th day of trial, the court heard evidence from Mark Thomson, Ms Frost’s solicitor from 2011 to 2019.
Cross-examining him, barrister Antony White KC, for ANL, asked about a meeting that took place in April 2016 between Mr Thomson, Ms Frost and Dr Evan Harris, who now works as a researcher for the legal team representing the group along with former journalist Graham Johnson.
Dr Harris had contacted Ms Frost earlier that year to tell her she was “not the only case we have found” of possible wrongdoing by ANL.
In his evidence, Mr Thomson, who is the senior partner and solicitor advocate at law firm Thomson Heath Jenkins & Associates, said that while the meeting happened, Dr Harris provided “no evidence” that Ms Frost could have a claim.
He said: “I was really frustrated as to why he called me to a meeting, Sadie Frost was as well, and I was quite annoyed because he has wasted my time.”
He continued: “Evan provided no evidence at all.
“It was a fairly typical Evan meeting, where he promises stuff and does not deliver.”
He added: “He did not provide anything of use.”
Mr White later said: “You would inevitably have wanted to see that evidence and take a copy, unless you had already seen it.”
Mr Thomson replied: “I wanted the evidence, I wanted a copy, and he did not produce it.”
The judge, Mr Justice Nicklin, then asked Mr Thomson: “Did it not strike you as odd that (Dr Harris) said he had got no evidence when he expressly referred to having evidence?”
Mr Thomson replied: “Yes it did.”
In written submissions, Mr White previously said that Ms Frost “had at least constructive knowledge of this claim by the October 2016 cut-off date”.
During cross-examination, Mr White also referred to an article published by Mr Johnson in 2019, which Ms Frost has said was the first time she discovered she could have a claim against ANL.
Prior to the article being published, Mr Johnson approached Ms Frost for comment through Mr Thomson and offered to “hand over our dossier of evidence” that Ms Frost had been subject to alleged unlawful activities.
Mr Thomson did not ask to see the dossier, but accepted Mr White’s suggestion that its “significance is obvious”.
Mr White said: “It would have taken moments to send an email back asking for the evidence if you did not already know about it.”
Mr Thomson later denied the claim that he had seen the evidence at the meeting in 2016 as “completely untrue”.
The trial before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude in March, with a judgment in writing due at a later date.
