Clarence House claimed victory today after the High Court ordered a national newspaper to return a private journal to the Prince of Wales and pay him damages for having published his thoughts on Tony Blair and the "appalling old waxworks" who run China.

But although the Prince was awarded summary judgment over the journal in question - entitled The Handover Of Hong Kong or The Great Chinese Takeaway - Mr Justice Blackburne said his confidence and copyright claim against The Mail on Sunday in respect of seven other journals held by the newspaper should still go to trial.

The Prince's decision to sue The Mail on Sunday for breach of confidence and copyright had been seen as a high-risk venture that could easily backfire on him and his advisers - especially if the heir to the throne was forced to testify and the content of the journals ended up in the public domain anyway.

But Sir Michael Peat, Charles's principal private secretary, said the trial would not involve the Prince taking the stand. "This will entail a short further hearing on points of law. The Prince of Wales will not be required to give evidence," Sir Michael said.

He said that the ruling provided "emphatic confirmation of the point of principle which the Prince of Wales sought to maintain - the publication of the stolen private diary was not right or justifiable".

Sir Michael added: "When we brought legal proceedings we brought them with regret. The last thing we want to do is take legal proceedings against Associated Newspapers. I am pleased to say we won on all those important points of principle."

The Prince's lawyers had told the court that the eight journals - written by the Prince for circulation among friends and acquaintances - had been stolen by a disloyal employee who passed copies to The Mail on Sunday.

The newspaper argued that publication was in the public interest and that the Prince had forfeited his right to confidentiality by copying them so widely.

In his ruling today, Mr Justice Blackburne said that the newspaper had argued that, because all the information in the Hong Kong journal was already in the public domain, any further injunction to prevent copyright infringement would be "inappropriate" and the media was now entitled to deal with it.

"I do not agree. There is nothing disproportionate in granting an injunction against further copyright infringement and an order for delivery-up of all infringing copies of that journal," he said.

"The fact that all the information contained in it is now in the public domain does not give the defendant, or anyone else, any right to infringe the claimant’s copyright in the work."

Of the seven other travel journals, the judge said their contents were not yet before the court, but it was said they were "of a similar character" to the Hong Kong journal and "contain many matters of considerable legitimate interest to the public".

He went on: "From what I have seen in the evidence, there is every reason for concluding that the claimant establishes, as much in relation to the other seven journals as he does in relation to the Hong Kong journal, a reasonable expectation of privacy in respect of their contents.

"That said, I am not willing on a summary application of this kind and without knowing anything of what the journals say to shut out the defendant from arguing at trial that the court should not prevent by a permanent injunction the further use by the defendant of information contained in those journals when, for all the court knows, circumstances may arise which may make the disclosure an entirely appropriate exercise of the defendant’s right of freedom of expression."

To order the newspaper to hand over its copies of the other seven journals at this stage, without a full hearing, could amount to an "illegitimate curtailment of its rights", he said.

The Mail on Sunday immediately said it would appeal against the Hong Kong ruling. It said in a statement: "We believe our report and this legal action both raise very serious questions about the constitutional role of the heir to the throne and the freedom of the Press.

"It cannot be legitimate for the Prince to claim the right to engage in political controversy and at the same time deny the public the right to know that he is doing so. These issues will be heard not only in our appeal over the Hong Kong journal but also in the trial relating to the other seven journals which the judge has agreed we should retain."

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Why Witherspoon is highlighting domestic violence
• No, MP does not stand for Mostly Plastered
• Don’t bottle out of your champagne moment