If anyone else should wish to refresh their memory about this legal case:
This was the article (19 February 2022) which triggered the Duke's lawsuit:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arry-tried-legal-fight-bodyguards-secret.html
This was the first ruling in the case (8 July 2022), in which the judge ruled that the meaning of the article was defamatory (in other words, it was seriously damaging to the Duke's reputation):
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2022/1755.html
Quoting from the judgment (the underlining was inserted by the judge):
26. In my judgment, the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article is as follows:
(a) in his legal claim against the Home Office over the provision of police protection, the Claimant had initially sought confidentiality restrictions that were far-reaching and unjustifiably wide and were rightly challenged by the Home Office on the grounds of transparency and open justice;
(b) the Claimant was responsible for public statements, issued on his behalf, which claimed that he was willing to pay for police protection in the UK, and that his legal challenge was to the Government's refusal to permit him to do so, whereas the true position, as revealed in documents filed in the legal proceedings, was that he had only made the offer to pay after the proceedings had commenced; and
(c) as such, the Claimant was responsible for attempting to mislead and confuse the public as to the true position, which was ironic given that he now held a public role in tackling "misinformation".
27. The underlined passages of the meaning are expressions of opinion, the balance makes allegations of fact. I am satisfied that these meanings are defamatory at common law, albeit only narrowly in respect of (a).
Note that, as revealed in the second ruling, the Duke of Sussex dropped his complaint over meaning (a).
This was the second ruling in the case (8 December 2023), in which the judge ruled that he would permit the case to go to trial instead of giving summary judgment in favor of the Duke of Sussex. In the judge's opinion, the Daily Mail's publisher had a real chance of being able to prove at trial that an honest person could have (based on the facts) held the defamatory opinions about the Duke expressed in the Daily Mail article (this is a recognized legal defense for publishing defamatory statements).
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/3120.html
Quoting from the judgment:
62. Overall, it is not fanciful that the Defendant [Associated Newspapers Limited] will be successful, at trial, in demonstrating that the public statements issued on the Claimant's [Duke of Sussex's] behalf sought to promote the JR [Judicial Review] claim as his battle against the Government's (perverse) decision to refuse to allow him to pay for his own security. There is a real prospect that the Defendant will succeed in demonstrating that this was a misleading description of the issues in the JR claim, arguably promoted because it was hoped to show the Claimant's JR claim in a positive light, whereas a portrayal of the JR claim as the Claimant trying to force the Government to reinstate his (tax-payer funded) State security risked his appearing in a negative light. I anticipate that, at trial, the Defendant may well submit that this was a masterclass in the art of "spinning". And, the Defendant argues, it was successful in misleading and/or confusing the public. The resulting media coverage relied upon by the Defendant did, indeed, characterise the JR claim as the Claimant's challenge to the Government's refusal of his offer to pay (see [26] above).
You almost made me spit out my coffee 
I think that is most likely what happened.
