<img src="https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&amp;c2=6035250&amp;cv=2.0&amp;cj=1&amp;cs_ucfr=0&amp;comscorekw=Max+Mosley%2CPrivacy+%26+the+media%2CNewspapers+%26+magazines%2CNews+of+the+World%2CUK+news%2CMedia%2CWorld+news%2CPrivacy"> Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Max Mosley outside the high court
Max Mosley said outside the high court that he was 'delighted' with the judgment. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP
Max Mosley said outside the high court that he was 'delighted' with the judgment. Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP

Max Mosley wins £60,000 in privacy case

This article is more than 15 years old

Formula one boss Max Mosley today won £60,000 in his privacy action against the News of the World after the Sunday tabloid had falsely accused him of taking part in a "sick Nazi orgy".

Mosley, 68, the son of the 1930s British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, sued the Sunday tabloid paper for grossly invading his privacy after it printed pictures and published video of him indulging in a five-hour sadomasochistic sex session with prostitutes in a Chelsea apartment.

He failed in his bid to seek an unprecedented award of punitive exemplary damages, but the £60,000 damages are the highest in recent legal history in a privacy action. Mosley was also awarded costs.

Outside the high court, Mosley told the waiting media scrum: "I am delighted with that judgment, which is devastating for the News of the World.

"It demonstrates that their Nazi lie was completely invented and had no justification."

In his judgment Mr Justice Eady said that Mosley had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in relation to his sexual activities no matter how "unconventional".

He found no evidence of Nazi themes in the orgy and said Mosley's life had been "ruined".

"I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on March 28 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust," Eady said.

"There was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S&M behaviour.

"But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website – all of this on a massive scale.

"Of course, I accept that such behaviour is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, but in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that does not provide any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of the claimant."

Eady added: "It has to be recognised that no amount of damages can fully compensate the claimant for the damage done. He is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined."

Both Mosley and the News of the World editor, Colin Myler, were in attendance in a packed court 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice to hear the verdict. Neither reacted when Eady read out his judgment.

Mosley added outside court: "It also shows [the News of the World] have no right to go into private premises and take pictures and films of adults engaging in activities that are nobody's business but their own.

"We are very pleased with the result. I have nothing further to say."

Reading a prepared statement outside court, Myler defended the paper's reporting and said the judgment was further evidence of a "creeping law of privacy".

"Unfortunately, our press is less free today after another judgment based on privacy laws emanating from Europe," Myler said.
"How those very general laws should work in practice has never been debated in the UK parliament. English judges are left to apply those laws to individual cases here using guidance from judges in Strasbourg who are unfriendly to freedom of expression. The result is that our media are being strangled by stealth. "That is why the News of the World will remain committed to fighting for its readers' right to know."

Myler said the paper believed its coverage was legitimate and lawful.

"The judge has ruled that Mr Mosley's activities did not involve Nazi role-play as we had reported, but has acknowledged that the News of the World had an honest belief that a Nazi theme was involved during the orgy," Myler said.

"The newspaper believed that what it published on March 30, 2008 was legitimate and lawful and, moreover, that publication was justified by the public interest in exposing Mr Mosley's serious impropriety."

The paper had alleged the session had "Nazi overtones", but Mosley - the president of the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) - strenuously denied this in court.

The News of the World's informant, known as Woman E, was not called as a witness for the paper because of what the paper's QC, Mark Warby, said was her "emotional and mental state".

The News of the World had argued that there was no basis for punitive damages, because the newspaper believed what was written and that it was legitimate to publish.

Mosley's counsel, James Price QC, argued that compensation for intrusion of privacy should be greater than those for defamation "because invasion of privacy can never be repaired and the claimant has to live with it for the rest of his life".

The case, which has made headlines around the world, saw Mosley give evidence about how the allegations had caused his wife and family great distress, while the News of the World editor, Colin Myler, defended the paper.

The judge awarded all costs to Mosley and refused the News of the World's argument that there should be a deduction because the paper had won on the issue of exemplary damages.

The previous highest award a court has made for breach of privacy was £5,000, although there have been several cases of higher settlements out of court.

Actors Catherine Zeta Jones and her husband Michael Douglas were awarded £14,600 against Hello! magazine in 2001 after it published unofficial pictures of their wedding, although the sum included other payments not related to breach of privacy.

David Engel, a partner in the media litigation team at Addleshaw Goddard, the firm that handled the Hello! case on behalf of Zeta Jones, Douglas and OK!, said the couple were awarded compensation £3,750 each for breach of privacy.
The payment also included £50 each for breach of the data protection act, and a further £7,000 for the inconvenience and additional costs of having to rush through approval of the photographs for OK!

Model Naomi Campbell won £3,500 against the Daily Mirror in 2003 after it printed a photo of her leaving a drugs counselling session.

Recent out-of-court settlements have included £37,500 to actor Sienna Miller from the News of the World and £58,000 to actors Hugh Grant, Liz Hurley and her husband Arun Nayar.

· To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediatheguardian.com or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.

· If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

Most viewed

Most viewed