A judge has ruled that parts of a Mail on Sunday story on the Duke of Sussex's security dispute were potentially defamatory.
Prince Harry sued Associated Newspapers Limited for libel regarding a February article that he wrote about his legal battle against the Home Office.
His barrister stated that the story implied that he had "lied" to try and manipulate public opinion.
ANL however stated that it contained "no hint or impropriety" so was not defamatory.
The High Court ruling is the initial stage in the libel case. It aims to define what the article meant, and what claims the newspaper will have to defend.
After further hearings, the court will decide if the case against the duke regarding libel succeeds or fails.
The Mail published the story on Sunday, and it was also available online. It referred to the separate legal case of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex against the Home Office regarding security arrangements while he and his family were in the UK.
The article was interpreted by Mr Justice Nicklin as Prince Harry being responsible for "spin the facts" and misleading people into believing he was offering to pay for protection for the police. He was also challenging the refusal of the government to let him do so.
The article stated that court documents showed that the duke only offered to finance security arrangements after the legal fight began. He had also unjustifiably attempted to keep documents and witness statements from the case public, the judge stated.
He rejected the legal team of Prince Harry's claims that the article meant that the prince had "lied".
The newspaper publisher's lawyers argued that the article focused on statements made by Prince Harry's PR machine, rather than Prince Harry.
The judge disagreed and stated that readers would believe statements made by the prince on his behalf if they were not clarified.
Prince Harry stated in a written statement that he was suffering from "substantial harm, embarrassment, and distress" during the preliminary hearing last month.
This latest libel ruling is coming a day after a court heard that Prince Harry was in "significant tensions" and had a top aide to Queen Elizabeth involved in lowering his security.
In that case, Prince Harry's lawyer stated that he didn't know Sir Edward Young, Queen's private secretary played a part.
Shaeed Fatima, QC stated that the decision to protect him was "materially prejudiced" because key information was withheld.
After stepping back from royal duties in 2020, the duke was stripped of all protection.
