Sculfor v MGN: when does the limitation clock start ticking in phone hacking claims?

In a judgement handed down on 16 March 2026, Mr Justice Fancourt decided the preliminary limitation issue in five sample claims forming part of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation (MNHL). The decision resolves a question that has blocked settlement of dozens of fifth-wave claims: whether those claims are statute-barred under the postponed limitation period in section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.

The five claimants — model and actor Paul Sculfor, publicist Melanie Cantor, PR agent Murray Harkin, dancer Camilla Sacre-Dallerup and fashion designer Patrick Cox — each accepted that their claims were brought outside the primary six-year period. The question was whether deliberate concealment by MGN deferred time running until after the date six years before each claim was issued.

The legal framework

Fancourt J reaffirmed the approach set out in his earlier judgement in Duke of Sussex v MGN Limited [2023] EWHC 3217 (Ch) and confirmed by the Court of Appeal's refusal of permission to appeal in May 2024. Drawing on Gemalto Holding BV v Infineon Technologies AG [2022] EWCA Civ 782 and the Supreme Court's formulation in Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v HMRC [2020] UKSC 47, the judge held that the limitation period begins when a claimant knew, or could with reasonable diligence have discovered, facts sufficient to indicate a "real possibility" of a worthwhile claim — not when they received positive legal advice that proceedings were merited.

Importantly, the judgement firmly rejects the claimants' "counterfactual case": the argument that, had they approached a competent solicitor before the relevant date, they would have been turned away or told they had no viable claim. Fancourt J held this impermissibly conflated two distinct questions — the existence of a worthwhile claim and a solicitor's willingness to act on a conditional fee agreement. The latter reflects litigation strategy and funding models, not the objective state of the claimant's knowledge.

The individual outcomes

Mr Sculfor succeeded. He had been materially misled by the articles themselves, which attributed his private information to his father and close friends. He made enquiries, was met with denials, and drew reasonable conclusions that foreclosed further investigation. Living in the United States for much of the relevant period, and having no connection to anyone known to have been hacked, he was not required to track the developing MGN story with the same attentiveness as an undeceived claimant. His claim was not statute-barred.

Ms Cantor, Mr Cox and Ms Sacre-Dallerup were each found to have been on notice to inquire before their respective relevant dates. Ms Cantor closely followed the phone hacking story, knew her long-standing client Ulrika Jonsson had been hacked, and could readily have made the inferential connection to her own position. Mr Cox knew that his closest friends — including Elizabeth Hurley, who issued proceedings against MGN in March 2015 — were pursuing claims, and that information he had left on their voicemails was likely intercepted. Ms Sacre-Dallerup received communications from the Metropolitan Police in both 2014 and 2015 confirming her details had appeared on a convicted phone hacker's list; a reasonably diligent person in her position would not simply have awaited further police contact.

Mr Harkin's case was starkest. He had consistently believed he was a victim, sought legal advice twice, and been discouraged from proceeding — once on strategic grounds and once through what the judge characterised as unduly cautious advice. Fancourt J held that the discouragement of solicitors, while capable of evidential weight, is not determinative of whether a worthwhile claim existed. Mr Harkin had known sufficient facts well before his relevant date of 2 July 2015.

Significance for remaining MNHL claims

The judgement is intended to resolve the principal obstacle to settlement of the remaining fifth-wave claims. It establishes that being misled as to the source of published private information can reduce the attentiveness reasonably expected of a claimant, but only where that deception causally diverted inquiry. It confirms that living abroad, receiving an adverse MPS response, or being advised to wait does not of itself pause the limitation clock. And it restates that the standard is a real possibility of a claim — not a proven one, not a funded one, and not one a particular firm has agreed to pursue.