Andrew Windsor Addresses Legal Battles in Video Statement

Wed Jan 07 2026 18:52:34 GMT+0200 (Eastern European Standard Time)

In a recently released video, Andrew Windsor speaks on ongoing legal actions involving media organizations, emphasizing the formal nature of his address in light of multiple proceedings across jurisdictions.

Andrew Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, Duke of York, has published a video statement addressing his ongoing legal challenges with media organizations. The video, framed in legal terms without commentary or questions, outlines existing legal actions in the UK, the US, and the Caribbean, emphasizing a context of investigation and regulatory scrutiny.

Andrew Windsor Addresses Legal Battles in Video Statement

Courtesy of TVMIX, part of the SIN Network

Embedded above is a recorded address delivered by Andrew Windsor, formerly styled His Royal Highness Prince Andrew, Duke of York.

In the statement, Windsor speaks directly to camera in a measured and formal tone, describing the address as a communication of record rather than a media appearance. He references ongoing and prospective legal actions involving media organisations and legal actors, including proceedings before the High Court and matters he states are now subject to investigative and regulatory review.

The address is framed explicitly in legal terms. No questions are taken, no commentary is added, and no editorial interpretation is provided within the video itself. The statement is presented in full and without alteration.

The video is reproduced in its entirety as received.

Annex P – Consolidated Proceedings and Investigative Context

1. United Kingdom – King’s Bench Division (High Court)

Reference: KB-2025-001991

Parties: Alkiviades David v Mahim Khan & Howard Kennedy LLP

Status: Judgment and costs order made; appeal pursued.

Key Issues: Failure to consider material evidence (400+ exhibits), withdrawal of reasonable disability adjustments, attempted restriction of self-representation, and a costs order reduced following judicial questioning as to proportionality and rationale.

Judges: Mr Justice Cotter; Mrs Justice Stacey.

2. United Kingdom – Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

From: King’s Bench Division, KB-2025-001991

Case: David v Kahn

Status: Grounds of Appeal finalized and ready for lodging; filing fee pending payment link.

Relief Sought: Permission to appeal; setting aside of judgment and costs order; admission of excluded evidence; remittal for rehearing with reasonable disability adjustments.

Legal Basis: CPR 44; CPR 52; Equality Act 2010; Articles 6 and 10 ECHR; R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor.

3. Antigua & Barbuda – Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (High Court of Justice)

Reference: ANUHCV 2025/0149

Status: Default judgment entered in favour of the Appellant; final as to liability; sealed order pending.

Notes: Defendants were duly served and failed to appear or defend. Proceedings arise from substantially the same factual matrix and overlapping parties as the UK action and engage principles of international comity.

4. United States – California (Related Proceedings)

Jurisdiction: California Courts

Status: Ongoing related proceedings involving overlapping parties, assets, and issues.

Notes: Raised before the High Court and on appeal as relevant to jurisdictional overlap, abuse of process, and the risk of inconsistent judgments.

5. United Kingdom – National Crime Agency (Investigative Context)

Authority: National Crime Agency

Status: Active investigation referenced in sworn evidence filed in these proceedings.

Notes: The existence of an open investigation forms part of the public-interest and whistle-blower context relied upon by the Appellant. These matters are not determinative here but are relevant to proportionality, access to justice, and the seriousness of the issues raised.

6. United States – Department of Justice (Investigative / Regulatory Context)

Authority: United States Department of Justice (Civil Division)

Status: Ongoing engagement referenced in sworn evidence.

Notes: These contacts arise from substantially the same factual matrix and are relied upon solely to demonstrate cross-border regulatory interest and the public-interest nature of the Appellant’s disclosures. No findings are asserted; relevance is contextual.