header-logo header-logo

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

Mosley loses privacy battle

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

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll