The first hearing in Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s legal challenge against Thames Valley Police will be held at the High Court on Thursday.

The former Duke of York is taking legal action against the force over the lawfulness of search warrants issued by a judge at the Old Bailey allowing officers to raid his residence on the Sandringham Estate and his former Windsor home, Royal Lodge, in February.

He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office following allegations he shared sensitive information with Jeffrey Epstein during his time as the UK’s trade envoy.

He was interviewed under caution before being released under investigation, and denies wrongdoing.

The Royal Courts of Justice will on Thursday hear Thames Valley Police’s bid to restrict access to court documents for the claim.

The hearing before Mr Justice Hilliard is due to begin at 2pm.

It will begin in private, meaning the press and public are excluded, with a judgment expected to be given in open court.

It is not known whether Andrew will attend the hearing, and no details of his challenge have been confirmed.

Court rules state the “general rule” is that members of the public and the press can access some documents that form part of legal challenges, subject to certain conditions.

But parties or people identified in documents can ask the court to restrict the press and public’s access to the documents, or allow them to see only edited versions.

The legal definition of misconduct in a public office can include a wide range of conduct – including sharing confidential financial information, financial misconduct, wilful neglect of duty, and sexual misconduct.

It also covers corruption and improper interference, conflict of interest, perverting the course of justice, dishonesty or fraudulent conduct, and misconduct leading to personal gain.

Police began their searches of the two properties and arrested Andrew on February 19, his 66th birthday.

Thames Valley confirmed on February 24 that their searches had ended.

Late last year, the King stripped his brother of both his right to be a prince and his dukedom over his association with Epstein.

A Buckingham Palace source confirmed on Monday that Andrew had been told not to use money from the annual stipend provided from the King’s private funds to finance the legal action.

Sean Caulfield, a partner at law firm Hodge Jones and Allen, said the lawfulness of a warrant can be challenged for several reasons.

He said: “The police may have gone beyond the remit of the search warrant; for example, there could be outbuildings or vehicles or secondary addresses that were not covered in the first grant of the search warrant.

“The judge could have misconstrued what he was told and gone beyond the test in the legislation in granting the search warrant, and it would therefore be invalid due to a mistake the judge made.

“There could also be some procedural errors in terms of dates and signatures on the form that would make it invalid.

“All of those in theory would result in a search warrant being in some way contaminated, but I do think all of those are quite unlikely.”

Mr Caulfield said he believed Andrew could receive compensation if successful, and the legal bill would already have run up to tens of thousands of pounds.