Timeline of Tuesday’s events in Harry’s legal claim against Sun publisher

The trial of the Duke of Sussex’s legal claim against the publisher of The Sun failed to start as expected on Tuesday, with the High Court told the two sides are “very close” in negotiations.

The trial, due to last several weeks, was expected to begin at 10.30am but was pushed back twice to 2pm before being adjourned to Wednesday morning, after the judge refused a request for a third delay.

Harry and former Labour deputy leader Lord Tom Watson are suing News Group Newspapers (NGN) over allegations of unlawful information-gathering, claiming that its journalists and private investigators targeted them.

NGN, which also ran the now-defunct News Of The World, denies any unlawful activity took place at The Sun.

Here is a timeline of what happened on the first day of the hearing in London:

At the start of the hearing on Tuesday, David Sherborne, for the duke and Lord Watson, asked the judge for the start of the hearing to be delayed.

He said: “I have been asked to ask your lordship if we can have a short adjournment for an hour.”

Mr Sherborne continued: “I appreciate that might cause some inconvenience.”

Mr Justice Fancourt agreed to the adjournment until 11.30am, but said: “It does not cause inconvenience, it causes the loss of some time if this trial is going to proceed.”

After returning to court, Mr Sherborne asked the judge for a further delay until 2pm.

He said: “I have been asked whether your lordship would give us a further period of time to continue discussions.

“I appreciate that does put the timetable, on the face of it, under a little pressure.”

The request was supported by Anthony Hudson KC, for NGN.

Mr Justice Fancourt said he was “a little concerned” with the timetable for the trial, but said: “An hour or two in the context of eight weeks is not significant.”

He continued: “If the parties assure me that that time will be very beneficial … and will produce some outcome, then I am willing to provide further time, but I think it has to be the last adjournment.

“If you have not reached an agreement by lunchtime, we will start at 2pm and I would like to be updated … on where you have reached by just before 1pm.”

When both sides returned to court in the afternoon, Mr Sherborne said: “Having spoken with Mr Hudson, on behalf of both of us we would like to ask your lordship for more time.

“We don’t do that lightly, as I am sure your lordship appreciates, but we do believe that with a couple of hours more today, given the progress that has been made between the parties, that hopefully may be productive for the overall timetable of the trial.

“I can’t say more about it at this stage. In the circumstances, there is only so much I can say, but Mr Hudson and I would not be asking for further time if we did not think it stood any prospect of potentially saving a lot of court time.”

Mr Hudson, for NGN, said they “wholeheartedly endorsed” the request for a third delay, telling the court that there were “time difference issues” affecting the “settlement dynamic”.

He said: “We do believe in the long run that this will give significant benefit to the court.

“For the sake of two hours, we are very concerned that if we don’t have these two hours, something that is capable of being achieved may not be achieved.

“The reason there is a real difficulty today is to do with time difference issues.

“These time difference difficulties will be resolved very shortly this afternoon and that is why we do suggest that if My Lord is willing to resume tomorrow at 10am, that could make a very significant difference to the parties.

“We will make sure that that will not impact on the timetable even though we have not started today.

“My clients are extremely concerned that the opportunity that has presented itself today may be less attractive once that trial has started.”

He continued: “If the trial starts this afternoon it could have impact on any settlement.”

Mr Sherborne added that the time difference “is a factor but it’s not the reason” for the request for further time.

Mr Justice Fancourt said he had “listened very carefully to what has been said, overtly and to some extent in code”, but that he was “not persuaded” a further adjournment should be granted.

He said: “There comes a point where the parties have had ample time to seek to resolve their differences and have not done so.

“I made it clear this morning when granting the second adjournment that it would be the final adjournment. I see no reason to change my mind.

“I am not satisfied on the basis of what I have been shown so far that the trial should not proceed at this time, and will therefore not allow the further adjournment.

“The trial should now start this afternoon.”

Mr Sherborne then requested a 10-minute break, which was granted by the judge.

When the two legal teams returned to the courtroom, Mr Hudson asked for the green light to challenge the judge’s decision, claiming the two sides had been in “intense negotiations over the last few days” and that “the reality is we are very close”.

He also said it would be “unreasonable” to stop the sides continuing their negotiations.

Mr Hudson continued: “Very unusually, both parties are in complete agreement that this is a very important step.

“The number of times the parties have been in agreement in this litigation are very few and far between.

“Both parties feel they have no choice but to persist in this.”

Mr Justice Fancourt refused the parties permission to appeal against his decision, but said: “I’m not going to stand in the way of access to justice if the parties wish to go to the Court of Appeal.”