The Duke of York has settled the sex assault case filed against him by Virginia Giuffre for an undisclosed sum, sparing him the humiliation of giving evidence in a trial and protecting the royal family from further reputational damage. The out-of-court settlement in the US civil case means Prince Andrew makes no admission of guilt over claims by Giuffre that he sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, allegations he has repeatedly denied. In a letter filed to the judge, Lewis A Kaplan, lawyers for Andrew, 61, and Giuffre, 38, said the two had reached a “settlement in principle”. A statement read: “The parties will file a stipulated dismissal upon Ms Giuffre’s receipt of the settlement (the sum of which is not being disclosed).” It added that Andrew would make a “substantial donation” to Giuffre’s charity in support of victims’ rights. International lawyers told the Guardian that the cost to Andrew was likely to be more than $10m (£7m) even before paying his own legal bill that is expected to run into millions. Tuesday’s legal statement continued that Andrew had “never intended to malign Ms Giuffre’s character” and that he recognised she had “suffered both as an established victim of abuse and as a result of unfair public attacks”. Andrew also pledged to “demonstrate his regret for his association” with the sex offender financier Jeffrey Epstein, by supporting the “fight against the evils of sex trafficking, and by supporting its victims”. He commended the “bravery of Giuffre and other survivors in standing up for themselves and others”. The move is a remarkable turnaround for the prince, who had promised to fight to clear his name in court, and whose lawyer had described Giuffre’s claim as “baseless” and her of seeking a “payday”. Andrew has always denied having a sexual relationship with Giuffre when she was a teenager. The duke’s legal team declined to comment on the settlement. Giuffre’s lawyer, David Boies, said of the statement: “I believe the event speaks for itself.” The settlement was announced weeks before Andrew was due to give a sworn deposition to Giuffre’s lawyers. It means there will be no civil trial, and he will not have to give evidence under oath or in front of a jury. Buckingham Palace declined to comment. Last month, the Queen stripped her second son of his royal patronages, honorary military titles, and his official use of his HRH style in a bid to distance the institution of the monarchy from the case. It is understood there are no plans for those patronages to be restored to him with the duke continuing not to undertake any public duties. Royal commentators believe it is very unlikely the duke will be able to return to public life. Royal author David McClure said: “This was always the only outcome for royal family in terms of damage limitation.” Andrew now faces potentially huge costs. Giuffre is likely to receive “substantial” compensation as well as having her legal fees paid and the donation to charity, lawyers said. Ann Olivarius, the senior partner of McAllister Olivarius law firm who has acted in cases on both sides of the Atlantic, said she expected Andrew’s settlement to be worth at least £10m and potentially more based on previous cases settled with wealthy individuals. “The size of the compensation is probably massive by any British standards, and it’s probably very substantial by American standards – and American standards are very high,” Olivarius told the Guardian. In January, the duke’s lawyers submitted 11 reasons why the case against him should be dismissed, saying he demanded a trial by jury. Giuffre had also said she wanted the civil case heard in court rather than settled. Graham Smith from the campaign group Republic said taxpayers “deserve to know where the money is coming from for a settlement, which we must assume is in the millions, if not tens of millions”. He added: “So much public money ends up in royal pockets one way or another. Are the British public ultimately paying for Andrew to avoid appearing in court? This scandal has done significant damage to the monarchy, and these questions aren’t going away.” Earlier in proceedings, Andrew had tried to get Giuffre’s case dismissed, arguing that she had waived her right to sue him under a previously secret $500,000 (£360,000) settlement she made with Epstein in 2009. Andrew was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in December of charges including sex trafficking and conspiracy relating to the recruitment of teenage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. Lisa Bloom, the lawyer who represents eight of Epstein’s victims, welcomed the settlement as a victory for Giuffre, who lives in Australia with her family. Bloom wrote on Twitter: “We hail Virginia’s victory today. She has accomplished what no one else could: getting Prince Andrew to stop his nonsense and side with sexual abuse victims. We salute Virginia’s stunning courage.” The royal author Penny Junor said the settlement was likely to come as a “huge relief” to the rest of the royal family. Going to trial “could have been very, very nasty”, she said. “It could have been embarrassing, humiliating, and it would have been huge fodder for the tabloid press. It could have really taken the shine off the Queen’s platinum jubilee year.” Media lawyer Mark Stephens said: “With this settlement, [Andrew] has prevented this court case overshadowing the tributes and acknowledgment of the Queen’s 70 years of selfless sacrifice and service to the country. “And while he is reputationally toast and will never appear on a royal balcony ever again and has effectively been airbrushed from polite society and the royal family, he does prevent wider problems for the royal family by ensuring this settlement goes away. And he has protected his children and their reputations, and he has protected the wider royal family.” Stephens added: “I think there will be a big, deep sigh of relief in the palace tonight.” What Prince Andrew said in the Newsnight interview In an infamous interview with Emily Maitlis on BBC’s Newsnight in 2019, Prince Andrew made a number of statements which were widely ridiculed. He also insisted he would fight the claims against him in court, if necessary. Here are some of the key quotes: On the photo, which shows the duke with his arm around Guiffre: I have no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever … that’s me but whether that’s my hand or whether that’s the position … I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken. On why, he says, he couldn’t have met Guiffre at a London nightclub: I was with the children and I’d taken Beatrice to a Pizza Express in Woking for a party at I suppose sort of 4pm or 5pm in the afternoon. And then because the Duchess was away, we have a simple rule in the family that when one is away the other one is there. On his problem with perspiration: I have a peculiar medical condition which is that I don’t sweat or I didn’t sweat at the time and that was … was it … yes, I didn’t sweat at the time because I had suffered what I would describe as an overdose of adrenalin in the Falkland’s War when I was shot at and I simply … it was almost impossible for me to sweat.” On staying with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010 – after the financier was released from jail. It was a convenient place to stay. I mean I’ve gone through this in my mind so many times. At the end of the day, with a benefit of all the hindsight that one can have, it was definitely the wrong thing to do. But at the time I felt it was the honourable and right thing to do and I admit fully that my judgment was probably coloured by my tendency to be too honourable but that’s just the way it is. On going to court to clear his name … I will have to take all the legal advice that there was before I was to do that sort of thing. But if push came to shove and the legal advice was to do so, then I would be duty bound to do so.