The Duke of Sussex’s legal action against the publisher of the Sun resembles a campaign between “two obdurate but well-resourced armies” and is taking up more than an appropriate amount of court time, a high court judge has said. Prince Harry, 40, alleges he was targeted by journalists and private investigators working for News Group Newspapers (NGN), which also published the now-defunct News Of The World. He is among a number of people to bring cases against the publisher over allegations of unlawful information gathering. A full trial of some of the cases is scheduled to take place at the high court in January next year. NGN has previously denied unlawful activity took place at the Sun. In a preliminary ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Fancourt resolved disputes between the legal teams for the duke and NGN over amendments to his pleaded case. The judge wrote: “I have previously indicated to the parties that this individual claim … although it raises important issues, is starting to absorb more than an appropriate share of the court’s resources, contrary to the requirement in the overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. “It is now doing so. “The claim at times resembles more an entrenched front in a campaign between two obdurate but well-resourced armies than a claim for misuse of private information. “It is unsatisfactory to say the least that the court should be faced a second time with having to resolve such a large extent of disputed material on amendments to a statement of case.” In his 12-page written ruling, the judge said he had “perhaps unduly optimistically, expected that the residual disputed material would be limited” in light of his decisions in May over how Harry could argue his case. “But, in the event, I am faced with a table of disputes running to 44 pages, with 49 separate items or groups of items disputed, only a handful of which were eventually agreed, and 34 pages of dense submissions by NGN in support of their objections.” The judge granted the duke’s lawyers permission to make certain amendments to how his case was put, while also upholding some of NGN’s objections. “It is clearly imperative that the content of the pleaded case is resolved as soon as possible,” he said. Fancourt also said he had made his ruling “as short as reasonably possible” in light of the urgency over the case and trial preparations. “I have also previously indicated that this claim will not be adjourned and will be either tried in January 2025 or settled, since it was issued as far back as September 2019 and has been stood out of eligibility for two previous listed trial dates,” he said. “That remains the position.”