Pressure is mounting on supporters of Neil Hamilton, who helped finance his failed libel action against Mohamed al-Fayed.

The Harrods boss has insisted he will demand every penny of the legal costs he incurred from Mr Hamilton.

He indicated that anonymous donors, who contributed to the shamed former MP's fighting fund, may have to foot the bill.

And trial Judge, Mr Justice Morland, has given Mr Hamilton 28 days to pass on details of any of his supporters who contributed more than £5,000.

Mr Hamilton faces financial ruin after the High Court jury unanimously dismissed his claim that Mr al-Fayed had libelled him on the Channel 4 programme Dispatches, shown in January 1997.

Mr Hamilton, 50, was ordered to be pay both sides' costs, estimated at £1m.

It is thought he and his wife Christine might have to sell their £700,000 Cheshire home to meet the costs.

Fighting fund

Mr al-Fayed told the BBC's Newsnight he would insist that all his legal costs are paid by Mr Hamilton, as ordered by the court.

He suggested that Mr Hamilton's so-called 'fighting fund' could foot the bill.

"There is a fund to fight this case and all those people will have to be punished and pay back my fees," said Mr al-Fayed.

His comments pile pressure on Lord Harris of High Cross, the treasurer of Mr Hamilton's fighting fund.

Lord Harris says he has raised about £500,000 from anonymous donations by 30-40 Conservative MPs sympathetic to Mr Hamilton's cause.

The law states that anyone maintaining or backing a claimant could be forced to contribute to meeting the legal costs.

Mr Hamilton has been given 28 days to reveal the names of those who contributed £5,000 or more to his fund.

Lord Harris, though, is standing by his man, despite Tuesday's judgement.

"My view is that the misperception of Hamilton, a chap I've known for 30 years, is a product of what I call the media wolf pack," Lord Harris said.

"They hunt together, take in each other's dirty washing and blow it up and wish to develop sensational and ever more extraordinary versions of often quite ordinary, humdrum events."

Royal warrant risk

In his Newsnight interview Mr al-Fayed repeated the claim he made in court that the Duke of Edinburgh and the British secret service were behind the death of his son Dodi and Princess Diana in a Paris car crash in 1997.

He said he did not care if repeating the allegation meant his Harrods store lost its Royal Warrant.

"For me it makes no difference," he said.

"What the hell is the value of a Royal Warrant? I'm not in need of a Royal Warrant. If they take it away it's no problem to me. I don't need their support, I have the support of the masses."

Mr al-Fayed said that the reason his application for British citizenship had been turned down was because he had "dared to say who killed my son and Princess Diana".

"It is the Establishment and the intelligence service who have done that because they don't want me to have British nationality," he said.

Describing Mr Hamilton as a person without "any dignity or honour", Mr al-Fayed defended his own integrity as a businessman.

"I don't need to corrupt anybody, I do my business with a lot of conscience, a lot of principle, a lot of honesty," he said.

On hearing Tuesday's verdict Mr al-Fayed had immediately issued a statement in which he said: "Christmas has come early. This is total vindication."

Mr Hamilton said he was "stunned and devastated" but maintained his innocence.

He has not yet decided whether to appeal.