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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll