On Tuesday, the trial began in Prince Harry’s long-awaited lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch’s London tabloids for illegal information gathering. But it was immediately delayed amid signs the prince was weighing a last-minute settlement offer from Mr Murdoch’s News Group newspaper.

Harry’s lawyer asked the judge for one hour, before asking for another adjournment until 2pm London time. During the break, lawyers pressed the corridors of the High Court, which was bustling with reporters gathered to cover the trial expected to be the last major legal reckoning for the victims of the phone-hacking scandal that blighted the British media more than a decade ago.

If Harry accepts the settlement, it would save him a lot of financial risk, regardless of how it goes in court. Under English law, he would be required to pay the legal costs of both sides – which could run into tens of millions of dollars – if the court did not award him an amount commensurate with what News Group Newspapers had offered him in the settlement.

For the News Group, this would prevent weeks of damaging testimony about phone hacking and other illegal methods used by journalists to obtain information about Harry and other high-profile figures. The News Group, which denies the allegations, has settled similar claims with hundreds of other plaintiffs over the years.

The judge in the case, Timothy Fancourt, granted the adjournment somewhat reluctantly, telling lawyers for both sides that he would do so on the grounds that additional time would be “beneficial” to reach some sort of outcome. There were strong incentives for both sides to reach an agreement.

Harry’s lawyers planned to lay out not only a pattern of wrongful conduct, but what they describe as a systematic scheme to delete emails to cover up the hacking. They questioned why the News Group did not plan to name those they claim are most responsible for the cover-up: Mr Murdoch’s younger son, James; Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News UK; and Will Lewis, a former senior executive at the company who is now publisher of The Washington Post.

Harry, who was away from the courtroom on Tuesday, said he expected his legal fees to overshadow any settlement he would receive from the court. But because of his resources and profile as the younger son of King Charles III, he said he had a rare opportunity to hold the tabloids accountable for years of predatory behavior.

“One of the main reasons to do this is accountability because I’m the last person who can get it done,” Harry told The New York Times in an interview at the DealBook Summit last month.

The News Group newspaper did not comment on the settlement negotiations. But in a statement last week, the company said it “made commercial sense” to agree financial terms with other people who have brought claims against The Sun, one of two tabloids owned by Mr. Murdoch, without admitting responsibility.

Mr Murdoch shut down his other tabloid, The News of the World, in 2011 after allegations of phone hacking erupted into a national scandal. He issued a contrite apology for the behavior of The News of the World, but the company has never acknowledged the wrongdoing of The Sun’s editors and reporters.

Harry was expected to testify at the end of February, after the court had completed what the court is mildly calling a “generic case”. At that stage, lawyers for Harry and another plaintiff, Tom Watson, the former deputy leader of the Labor Party, planned to establish widespread and deep-rooted misconduct by editors and journalists at The Sun, as well as efforts to clean up incriminating emails.

News Group settled with all but two of the original plaintiffs in the case, including actor Hugh Grant, as well as cases involving 1,300 other hacking claims. Mr. Grant he said in April that he felt compelled to settle, because “even if every charge was proven in court, I would still be liable for something approaching £10 million in costs. I’m afraid I’m ashamed of that fence.”

Lawyers for Harry, who is also known as the Duke of Sussex, and Mr. Watson, who is a member of the House of Lords, wrote in a summary of their submission: “To be clear, this case is not about money for the Duke and Lord Watson.”

“They want disclosure and accountability regarding what was done to them, as well as what they generally did” to the News Group and its senior executives “to thousands of victims,” ​​the lawyers wrote.