I feel I'd go as far as to say he's sort of impugning the integrity really [laughs] of the judge.

Well, Dom, I, I agree with you that he has impugned the integrity of Mr.

Justice Nicklin, and I think unfairly.

And I'm sure that his legal team didn't sign this off, um, because it's, um, it's really beyond the pale.

It's not something which we normally see.

Certainly wouldn't, shouldn't have been sanctioned by any lawyers.

The, the history is this, that when Matthew Nicklin, who I do know personally- But not closely.

I'm not sure whether that's clear, but how does it unfold now from a procedural point?

[chuckles] With that case, were the judges concerned about the privacy of the philandering man, or was it the innocent bystanders, so the children, the, the wife, or was it a combination of all, of all?

Well, there were, there were two fac- two big factors in the case.

One was that, uh, uh, children were involved on the claimant's side in, in the sense that they, they might be af- adversely affected by the, the identities of the claimant and the claimant's spouse coming out, and that was something that-The President of the Supreme Court, Brenda Hale, um, was very much focused on.

The second issue, which was certainly our, our strongest, um, aspect, was that an injunction can only apply to England and Wales.

It can't apply globally.

And so the story had been published with the identities coming out in the United States.

There was something called geo-blocking going on, which was that the US publications geo-blocked England because there was an injunction in place.

But I mean, what, what did you make of it? And do you th- do you agree with me that it looks like this could be sort of a bridge too far for Prince Harry and his sort of ongoing wars against the, the tabloid press?