header-logo header-logo

Mosley loses privacy battle

12 May 2011
Issue: 7465 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court holds human rights of Former F1 boss were not breached

Max Mosley has lost his attempt to force the media to warn people before exposing their private lives at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The former Formula 1 head won £60,000 damages and £240,000 costs from the News of the World in 2008 after it falsely claimed there was a Nazi theme to his sado-masochistic orgy. He appealed to ECtHR, on the basis his human rights had been breached because the newspaper did not warn him of the story.

ECtHR said the conduct of the newspaper was “open to severe criticism” and that it had published additional video footage for no reason but to “titillate the public and increase the embarrassment of the applicant” (Mosley v UK [2011] ECHR 774).

However, it concluded that “having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the significant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Art 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement”.

Robin Shaw, privacy and defamation partner at Davenport Lyons, said: “This is very welcome news for the media; if Mr Mosley had succeeded in his application, the law would likely have become unworkable and would have led to a wholly disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression.

“The obligation to give prior notification would not have been restricted to stories about the sexual behaviour of people in the public eye...It would have been ruthlessly exploited by the well-known and, their PR advisers and their lawyers, to control, by legal action and threats of subjecting the media to enormous legal costs, what was written and broadcast about them.”

Attempts by the rich and famous to gag the media have sparked controversy in recent weeks. The details of six alleged super-injunctions were posted on Twitter this week, while political journalist Andrew Marr has faced claims of hypocrisy for taking one out.

Issue: 7465 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll