Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) stood accused of carrying out or commissioning unlawful information gathering, such as hiring private investigators to placing listening devices inside cars, "blagging" private records, and accessing and recording private phone conversations.

The publisher "firmly" denied the allegations. At a preliminary hearing in March, its legal team asked Mr Justice Nicklin to rule in its favour without a trial, arguing the legal challenge had been brought "far too late".

But in a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Nicklin said ANL had "not been able to deliver a 'knockout blow' to the claims of any of these claimants".

In his 95-page judgment, he said each of the seven people have a "real prospect" of demonstrating ANL concealed "relevant facts" that would have allowed them to bring a claim against the publisher earlier.

"What was deliberately hidden from the claimants - if they are correct in their allegations - were the underlying unlawful acts that are alleged to have been used to obtain information for subsequent publication," he added.

Actor Hugh Grant, who is a board director for Hacked Off, a press reform campaign group, described the ruling as a "significant blow to the Daily Mail".

He added it is "great news" for anyone who "wants the truth about allegations of illegal press practices to come out".

Harry brought the privacy case along with six others, including Sir Elton's husband David Furnish, actress and designer Sadie Frost, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, and former Liberal Democrat MP Sir Simon Hughes.

The royal made an appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice during the four-day hearing in March, with Sir Elton, Ms Frost and Lady Lawrence also attending at times.

What's alleged?

Lawyers for the claimants have said they had become aware of "highly distressing" evidence revealing they had been victims of "abhorrent criminal activity" and "gross breaches of privacy" by Associated Newspapers.

Accusations include:

• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people's cars and homes;

• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people's live, private telephone calls while they were taking place;

• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception;

• Paying police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for sensitive information;

• Accessing bank accounts and financial transactions.

'Preposterous smears'

ANL has described the allegations as "preposterous smears", and claimed legal action taken is "a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers".

Adrian Beltrami KC, for ANL, said the legal action against it had "no real prospects of succeeding" and was "barred" under a legal period of limitation.

Read more:
Harry v ANL: Everything you need to know about the court case
Harry says Royal Family 'without doubt' withheld information from him on phone hacking

He added the claimants could have used "reasonable diligence" to find out if they had a potential claim before October 2016.

Many of the claimants had brought legal action against other newspaper groups and hired lawyers involved in the Leveson Inquiry into press standards and phone hacking litigation, which took place in 2011 and 2012, as well as a "research team", the barrister said.

"It is inconceivable that what is claimed to be the key new information leading to each claimant realising they had a claim arrived unbidden in the past couple of years," Mr Beltrami said. "It must have been the product of a process, probably over a number of years."

However, lawyers for the claimants said they were "thrown off the scent", having believed "categorical denials" from ANL over any involvement in unlawful activity.

David Sherborne, representing Harry and others, described ANL's bid to end the claims as "ambitious as it is unattractive".