Is Harry’s war with the press finally over?

The publisher In 2011, Leveson insisted under oath that there had been no wrongdoing by the newspapers.

An all-or-nothing defense, opponents say, leaves the Associated Press vulnerable to even the slightest hint of illegal activity. As it turned out, this was not even the case.

Other law firms have been following the case closely to inform their own approach to taking on Associated Press.

The BBC has been told it will include the “usual suspects” who have won cases in other newspapers and a public figure with links to the royal family.

Whether those legal actions will continue in light of Tuesday’s ruling remains to be seen.

But the 20-year history of such claims seems certain to be coming to an end.

The case of Associated Newspapers was different in many ways.

Instead of allowing “general evidence” that violates journalistic “bias” rules, the judge ruled that every newspaper story was obtained illegally, allowing the winners to prevail.

The judge confirmed that the evidence was collected in a questionable manner.

Some of the crucial documents and witnesses obtained for the refund include Graham Johnson, a former hacking journalist turned campaigner for Press Standards.

He told the BBC this week that he had paid private investigators to write online stories about the scandal. Using the data as evidence came later.

This was “unconvincing”, the judge found. Johnson decided that he knew his job was for journalistic purposes and winning a court case.

One of those paid, private investigator Gavin Burroughs, appears to have entered two statements. One said he had been involved in extensive illegal activities at the Mail Newspapers, while the other said he had done nothing.

To the judge, the statements contradicted each other, and he decided that Burroughs could not rely on what he said.