News Intellectual Property Litigation Private Client Technology, Media and Telecommunications UK Law firms Advisors kept as Mosley moves from privacy to libel By The Lawyer 28 July 2008 12:03 13 December 2015 22:58 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Angry woman- not an ice queen 28 July 2008 at 15:11 Moseley mess Having read the weekend newspapers one would think that we are never going to read a piece of investigative journalism again. The hysterical reaction in the press to the judgment in this trial has been woeful. Eady said this was NOT a landmark decision and would NOT therefore affect freedom of information. If the News of the World had settled this case as it should have done rather than fighting in the courts then the press wouldn’t be in this mess. Nor would Mosley be trying to bring libel action in the UK, Germany and France. Now of course the NotW can have its recourse through its Sunday pages (as if there is not enough news in the world) and it has drafted in the church to complain about modern morality. All this about a private person’s private sex life which he enjoyed privately. If you don’t want to be “corrupted” by his antics don’t read it. Since when has the NotW lectured anybody on morality? Reply Link A lawyer 28 July 2008 at 15:21 Tactics… …on Mosley’s legal team are extremely clever. They’ve clearly realised that if they’d gone straight for the libel a jury of 12 may have taken a different view from a judge sitting alone. Now that the Eady J’s said that there isn’t a Nazi element it means there’s got to be a libel as the legal team now has a ruling that they can refer to. Clever….very clever. Reply Link annoyed newspaper reader 28 July 2008 at 15:37 Tactics… So why didn’t Farrers advise NotW to settle? Surely they were well aware of the dangers of a libel case? Steeles Law may have been playing tactics, but it is up to NotW’s lawyers to make sure that it plays fair – a notion which all journalists and editors should aspire to. Reply Link Resolver 28 July 2008 at 17:18 Max Mosley What astonishes me is that the News of the World has found a high churchman who clearly knows absolutely nothing about S&M. Reply Link Anonymous 28 July 2008 at 17:32 But what is Max’s damage? It strikes me that the damage to Max’s reputation caused by the “nazi” allegation might be rather limited. Is there really much difference between knowing MM engaged in sadomasicistic sex (true), and thinking that he engaged in the same but with a Nazi kink (false)? Either way, my conclusion would be the same (dirty old man). And in any case, hasn’t the judgment last week already set the record straight and undone any damage (or does libel allow him to claim for temporary damage to reputation)? Perhaps a defamation lawyer could enlighten me. Reply Link Anonymous 28 July 2008 at 18:08 Max’s damage In response to “anonymous”, the answer is actually quite clear from the judgement itself : NOTW made a particular point of alleging not simply that Max was engaging in S&M (would anyone, particularly a reader of NOTW, really be shocked by that these days?), but that it had a Nazi theme, which was important for two reaons: 1) it enabled NOTW to make Max out as unrepetant Nazi-loving spawn of his fascist father; and 2) (as Eady J wisely pointed out) it would have constituted an egregious insult to Holocaust victims coming from a very public figure. As the court found that (1) consensual S&M sex is no-one’s business but the participant, and (2) there was no Nazi element, it makes a very big difference indeed. Reply Link Anonymous 28 July 2008 at 18:19 Res Judicata….? I’m not a libel lawyer, and therefore assume this is a moot point, but can anyone explain (briefly!) why Henderson -v- Henderson won’t apply here? Seems to arise out of the same cause of action to me Reply Link Anonymous 28 July 2008 at 18:52 Max Mosley The insinuation appeared to be to link the events to Mosley in a way that tied him to his father’s reputation so as to cause Mosley harm. Their ‘story’ was in their eyes a non-story unless they could link Mosley to the Black Shirt brigade and destroy his reputation. He has been to hell and back and it speaks volumes for him. I wish him well. His relationship with his wife and family is clearly hugely diminished let alone his professional career. Prior to commenting, perhaps you should ready incompetent Eady’s judgment and in particular paragraphs http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/images/homepage/2707_mosley.pdf 81 onwards. The NOTW doesn’t seem to have given much publicity to that part of the hearing. Reply Link Anonymous 29 July 2008 at 07:30 mosley libel Mosley is an extremely brave dirty old man. The whole NoW strategy is based on the assumption that its victims will either be too poor, or too embarrassed talking about their sex lives in open court, to take them on. So they calculate that what they publish what can be a version of the truth twisted and embellished to make it more sexy for their drooling readers. That is what they do. Luckily they picked the wrong man – he is both rich and determined. Reply Link Mendipman1 29 July 2008 at 08:34 Moseley v “fourth estate”! Thank God for Lord Carey of Clifton, sometime Archbishop of Canterbury. “Romans: 6 v 12”. Reply Link Anonymous 29 July 2008 at 10:50 Max’s damage I guess I was simply saying that, from my point of view, I don’t care whether he had a Nazi kink, or a Drs and Nurses kink, or anything else. It simply makes no odds as far as his reputation is concerned in my eyes. Granted, others may take a different view. Incidentally, although I haven’t read many of the NoTW’s articles, I didn’t particularly get the impression that he endorsed his father’s behaviour in any way. I simply took it that, for whatever odd reason (perhaps relating to his family background, perhaps not), the idea turned him on. Whatever takes your fancy, Max. So, given that there was an invasion of Max’s privacy, was it not that which caused him the damage (or a good part of it), rather than the additional Nazi issue? For instance, I’m sure his exposure as a dirty old man who engagd in S&M would have been quite enough to rock the boat with his wife and with the various heads of Muslim countries who apparently no longer wish to deal with him. Reply Link Anonymous 30 July 2008 at 10:03 Proposal Wouldn’t it be more appropriate if we ignored Mr. Mosley and his disgusting avocations. Firstly, as we know by now, it’s his private matter. And secondly, the filth is attracting far too much attention. Mr Mosley should not be worth a second of our precious time (which I’m wasting writing this). Instead we should focus on the good and beautiful. Reply Link Anonymous 30 July 2008 at 10:31 I love the NoTW Nonsense. I was delighted to read about Max’s misdemeanours. Genuinely ludicrous behaviour that made for hilarious viewing. Long may NoTW stings continue. And with nominal damages like £60K for such a brazen breach of privacy, I’m perfectly sure they will continue. They might just be a little more careful with their embellishments next time. Publication of this stuff may (aruably) not be in the public interest, but it is certainly of interest to the public. But can someone (please excuse me, I’m a NoTW reader and couldn’t understand the long words in the judgment) tell me why the damages were so low? Even with a million or so of costs to pick up, the economics are I imagine pretty clear from NoTW’s point of view. Reply Link Alfred Reichwein jun. 30 July 2008 at 12:48 Mosley – black shirts are back in fashion Sorry, but deep in their heart anybody nows about the fascination that there happens to be in Britain for this strange Herrenmenschen-Cult of Hitlers Nazis for a ceratin type of men (regardless of age or intelligence). It is a clear psychological theme: we are an island, we were attacked by those germanic monsters who tried to be the No 1 power in world… well we CAN be BAD also, if we want… etc etc. I mean: HELLOOOO! Did I have to remind anybody of Prince Harry and his ingenious party-outfit? And now this, To not only see it discussed as a possibility but having it spelled out by a judge of Her Majesty that Mr Mosley was NOT thinking of a Nazi-Theme is a JOKE! That is so obvious! Oh, I see, it is just a coincidence that Max Mosley’s father was a fascist and was once marching on London to get rid of the Jews in Britain. And the police even helped him doing so! It was the reasonable majority of decent people that simply had to block the streets of London with their BODIES in order to stop this march! Remember? Well its not taught in British schools, guess why! And now, it is again a British judge to protect the Nazis of this world! Should then NotW be the decent part here? Well, it is a matter of privacy and it is not, it is basically one of those rare moments where is no correct answer to the legal question. I would agree that it is a case of breach of privacy, but it is ludicrous for a judge to EXCLUDE that this might have had a NAZI-connotation. It just had one. And for the international automobile community to keep this guy is disgusting. Full stop. Reply Link Richard Ramsey 30 July 2008 at 14:25 ‘incompetent’ Eady I am unclear as to why Anonymous refers to ‘incompetent’ Eady when the judgment, which I have read in full, shows no lack of grip and indeed shows that the Nazi allegations, that themselves may have had more of a sting for one coming from Max Mosley’s background, were distinct from any broader allegations of immorality. Eady J seems to be pushing the boundaries of privacy more than other High Court judges and, unlike his colleague in the JK Rowling case, seems to have got it right. NotW obviously over-egged the pudding by making allegations about Nazi overtone to this orgy, presumably thinking that ordinary S&M was not enough. Reply Link Jay 30 July 2008 at 15:41 Mosley Anon @ 10.50 am 29 July: ” I didn’t particularly get the impression that he endorsed his father’s behaviour in any way” So that would be a different Max Mosley who stood for election on a rabidly fascist party ticket a few years ago then would it? He not only shares his disgusting father’s politics, but he shares his arrogance as well. Reply Link Anon 30 July 2008 at 18:02 What?? To Alfred Reichwein- have you actually watched the video? I fail to see how Eady is protecting the odious Nazis in this ruling by saying that there was no Nazi theme is Mosleys sex life. And if you read the NotW you would know that the paper regularly overeggs the pudding- in this case it went too far. It was common knowledge that NotW was going to loose on this one, they were prepared to pay out a lot more than the £60k awarded. Perhaps that is because they knew there was no Nazi theme. Four hours of footage was taken just so they could “expose” a Nazi theme and there wasn’t one. Why should he lose his job for enjoying his sex life? Even if it does appear a little strange to the majority of us. Reply Link Anonymous 31 July 2008 at 20:54 Did he forget to pay you for some girls, Jay? You sound very angry, calm down. And don’t go talking yourself onto the wrong end of one of Max’s claim forms! Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.