The Duke of Sussex had “suspicion and paranoia” caused due to the publication of articles by Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) using unlawfully gathered information, the High Court has been told.

In written submissions for ANL, lawyers for the publisher quoted from documents filed on Harry‘s behalf.

Adrian Beltrami KC, for ANL, said the duke’s case was that “suspicion and paranoia was caused by Associated’s publication of the unlawful articles: friends were lost or cut off as a result and everyone became a ‘suspect’, since he was misled by the way that the articles were written into believing that those close to him were the source of this information being provided to Associated’s newspapers”.

The barrister continued: “The duke’s pre-action letter also stated that at the time he had become paranoid and suspicious by ‘unexplained disclosures of private information in your (ANL’s) publications’.”

Mr Beltrami added: “He stated that ‘the repeated, wrongful disclosures... had a serious and profound effect upon (him) at the time of their publication’ and that he had ‘painful memories... regarding the extent to which ANL publicised private and sensitive information relating to his private and family life’.”

Sir Elton John has arrived in Court 76 of the Royal Courts of Justice.

The singer sat at the back of the large courtroom, arriving shortly before the hearing resumed for the afternoon.

Last July the High Court ruled a Mail on Sunday article on the Duke of Sussex’s legal claim against the Home Office contained parts that were defamatory.

The Duke of Sussex sued the Mail on Sunday’s publisher over a story on a separate High Court case over the decision to remove his automatic granting of police protection in the UK.

The February article carried the headline: “Exclusive: How Prince Harry tried to keep his legal fight with the government over police bodyguards a secret... then - just minutes after the story broke - his PR machine tried to put a positive spin on the dispute.”

Lawyers for Harry had argued the article was defamatory and suggested the duke had “improperly and cynically” tried to manipulate public opinion.

Lawyers for Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) are arguing that the seven people in the privacy claims, including the Duke of Sussex, could have brought claims before October 2016, and were too late to have them heard now.

Adrian Beltrami KC, for the publisher, said in written submissions that the duke “does not offer any reason why he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered the basis for his inferential claim against Associated before October 2016”.

Quoting from Harry‘s letter of claim, he continued: “Indeed, the Duke was aware throughout this period of the intense interest in his life shown by the media and by Associated, of ‘strange things happening around his phone communications’, of ‘unexplained disclosures of private information’ in Associated’s publications and of journalists from Associated ‘regularly turning up at different locations which you would never expect them to, including South Africa... despite the extreme lengths my security team and I went to in order to protect my security and privacy’.”

“In truth, the duke had sufficient knowledge to articulate an inferential case against Associated long before October 2016,” Mr Beltrami said.

The judge overseeing the Duke of Sussex's dispute with ANL has made an order temporarily preventing the reporting of the names of journalists linked to allegations against the publisher.

Mr Justice Nicklin permitted a bid by ANL to have a reporting restriction imposed while the publisher attempts to have the claims from Harry and others against it dismissed without a trial.

The judge said it was "not usual for the court to impose reporting restrictions at such an early stage of proceedings" but concluded in this instance it was "in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice".

The court heard that with ANL yet to file a formal defence in the cases, there was not yet a full response to any "adverse comments" that might be made about the journalists. Mr Justice Nicklin said it would not be in the public interest to "for one side of a series of allegations to be put when one side is absent".

The judge also granted reporting restrictions over certain information in court documents, that ANL alleges lawyers for the Duke of Sussex and others are using in breach of orders made by Lord Justice Leveson in his inquiry into press standards.

Mr Justice Nicklin said the temporary reporting restrictions would be revisited once he reaches a judgment over the preliminary issues being argued in court this week.

Adrian Beltrami KC, in written submissions, argued the legal actions against his client Associated Newspapers have been brought too late and are "stale".

The barrister said the individuals have to prove they did not know earlier, or could not have discovered earlier, they might have had a claim against ANL for alleged misuse of their private information.

Mr Beltrami said that more than a decade after the Leveson Inquiry and several criminal and civil proceedings over phone hacking, "it would be surprising indeed for any reasonably informed member of the public, let alone a figure in the public eye, to have been unaware of these matters".

He continued: "The claimants have failed to show that they have a real prospect of discharging their burden at trial and the court should not hesitate to dismiss these stale claims at an early stage, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be a considerable waste of time, costs and the court's resources."

The hearing before Mr Justice Nicklin is due to conclude on Thursday.

David Sherborne, for the group of high-profile individuals, said the unlawful acts in the claim include commissioning the "breaking and entry into private property", illegally intercepting voicemail messages, listening to live landline calls and obtaining medical records.

He said in written submissions: "The claimants each claim that in different ways they were the victim of numerous unlawful acts carried out by the defendant, or by those acting on the instructions of its newspapers, The Daily Mail and The Mail On Sunday."

"They range through a period from 1993 to 2011, even continuing beyond until 2018," the barrister added.

ANL's lawyers have said privacy claims brought by seven high-profile individuals including the Duke of Sussex and Baroness Lawrence should be dismissed without a trial.

The Duke of Sussex has made a surprise return to the UK for the first time since the late Queen's funeral - but is not expected to meet with the King or the Prince of Wales.

Just weeks ago, Harry laid bare his troubled relationship with his father the King and brother the Prince of Wales in his controversial autobiography Spare.

The King was due to be away on Monday on the first official state visit of his reign, but the trip to France was cancelled due to rioting over pension reforms, meaning Charles is now in the UK at the same time as Harry for the first time in six months.

But Buckingham Palace said the King was not in Windsor or London and would be leaving for a state visit to Germany on Wednesday morning.

Court proceedings began with a bid by ANL's lawyers to have certain reporting restrictions imposed in the case.

The Duke of Sussex sat towards the back of the courtroom, occasionally taking notes in a small black notebook as legal arguments were made by ANL's barrister Catrin Evans KC.

Actress Sadie Frost, who is also bringing a claim against the publisher, sat two seats away from Harry.