Prince Harry and other high-profile figures could be ordered to pay millions of pounds towards the legal costs of the publisher of the Daily Mail after losing a major privacy case.
The claimants, including singer Elton John and five other prominent figures, sued Associated Newspapers, alleging that its publications had used unlawful methods to obtain information about them, including phone hacking.
Earlier this month, a High Court judge rejected the claims, ruling that the group had failed to prove that information published about them had been obtained illegally.
Associated Newspapers described the judgment as a decisive victory for its journalists and "for a free press generally". Prince Harry, however, called the ruling a "complete and obvious whitewash".
The latest hearing at the High Court is focused on how much of Associated Newspapers' legal costs the claimants should pay.
The publisher's lawyer, Antony White, argued that the claimants should be ordered to pay costs on an "indemnity basis". This would require the losing side to cover the other party's costs without the usual requirement that they be considered proportionate.
The court heard that Associated Newspapers had incurred legal costs of about £34.5m ($45.8m), while the claimants had insurance cover of £16m.
Mr White strongly criticised the case, arguing that the claimants had made serious and wide-ranging allegations without sufficient evidence, increasing the publisher's legal costs.
He also criticised Prince Harry's statement following the judgment, saying the Duke of Sussex had used his public position and celebrity status inappropriately.
Associated Newspapers is seeking an interim payment of £10m.
Representing the claimants, Nicholas Bacon said the publisher's £34.5m legal bill was "eye-watering" and substantially exceeded its agreed budget.
He said there was a clear gap between the costs claimed by Associated Newspapers and the level of financial security available to the claimants.
The claimants have offered an interim payment of £8m by 28 August.
In his judgment dismissing the case, Mr Justice Matthew Nicklin said the claimants had been required to establish that information published about them had been obtained through unlawful means.
He concluded that they had failed to meet that threshold, stressing that suspicion alone was insufficient.
The claimants have not ruled out seeking permission to appeal against the judgment. Their lawyers said any such application would be considered after the judge's decision on legal costs.
The costs hearing is due to continue on Thursday.
