LONDON -- Prince Harry faced a setback in his libel case against Associated Newspapers Ltd., the publisher of the Daily Mail tabloid, as a judge ruled in favor of the defendant in a preliminary round on Friday. The case revolves around an article that alleged Prince Harry tried to conceal his attempts to retain publicly funded protection in the UK after stepping down from his role as a working member of the royal family.

The ruling by Justice Matthew Nicklin at the High Court in London allows Associated Newspapers Ltd. to argue that the article expressed an "honest opinion" about the facts of the case, thus deeming it not libelous. The judge stated that the publisher has a "real prospect" of demonstrating that the public statements issued on behalf of Prince Harry were misleading.

In his ruling, Justice Nicklin wrote, "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."

A hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday to discuss the implications of the ruling.

This development comes on the heels of another legal dispute, where a separate judge recently concluded three days of closed-door arguments regarding the government's decision to withdraw Prince Harry's security detail following his relocation to the United States in 2020.

Prince Harry, 39, has challenged the government's stance to provide security on a case-by-case basis when he and his family visit Britain. He cited concerns about personal safety due to hostility on social media and intrusive media attention as reasons for his opposition.

The specific article targeted by Prince Harry's libel case, titled "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," was published by the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online in February 2022. Prince Harry claims that the article contained "fundamentally inaccurate" information and that it libeled him by suggesting he had lied in his initial public statements regarding the legal case against the government.

Associated Newspapers Ltd. defended its position by asserting that the article merely expressed an "honest opinion" and did not cause significant harm to Prince Harry's reputation.

Previously, Justice Nicklin had ruled that the article in question was defamatory, but he had not assessed its accuracy or public interest.

Regarding the government's decision to scale back Prince Harry's security, it maintains that such action was justified due to his resignation as a senior working member of the royal family. The government argues that Prince Harry was treated fairly and continues to receive occasional security when he visits the UK.

This libel case against the Daily Mail is one of four ongoing lawsuits that Prince Harry has filed against British tabloids, alleging unlawful practices such as deception, phone hacking, and hiring private investigators in attempts to uncover damaging information about him. The other lawsuits target the Daily Mirror and the Sun.

As Prince Harry's legal battles with the press continue, they shed light on the ongoing tension between the royal family and the media. The outcomes of these cases could have significant implications for the relationship between the British royals and the tabloid press in the future.