Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd (2008) was a landmark case in privacy and media intrusion in the UK that marked a change in judicial attitude to the protection of cases involving intimate details of one’s (private) sex life. While the Mosley case was decided over 17 years ago, the law in this area has remained relatively settled with private sexual encounters widely regarded as attracting a high degree of privacy. Essentially this marked the end of the era dominated by ‘kiss and tell’ stories.
Summary
In March 2008, the News of the World published an exposé titled ” F1 BOSS HAS SICK NAZI ORGY WITH 5 HOOKERS”. The subject was Mr Max Mosley, the son of British Nazi-sympathiser Sir Oswald Mosley, and at the time, president of the FIA (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile). Max had engaged in a consensual sexual encounter of a Sado-masochistic nature with five women. The encounter was secretly filmed by one of the women and subsequently sold to the News of the World.
Mr Mosley sued claiming that publishing the article was a breach of confidence and a misuse of private information. The newspaper argued that the incident, involving Nazi-themed role-play, warranted publication due to public interest, given Mosley’s public status and his father’s history as the well-known British fascist leader, Oswald Mosley. However, Mr Justice Eady, then the most senior media Judge in the High Court, ruled in favour of Mr Mosley, stating that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning consensual activities on private property, and that there was no overriding public interest to justify publication. The fact that the public might be curious did not transform private matters into public interest.
Following a comprehensive examination of the evidence, Eady J determined the absence of any Nazi element, and the newspaper’s defence was struck out. Consequently, the judge was not required to assess the potential impact of a Nazi element on the case’s outcome.
While Mr Mosley awarded £60,000 in damages, Eady J refused his injunction to have the video removed, recognising the fact the material had become so widely available an injunction would be futile.
Significant Development
PJS v News Group Newspapers (2016) is another significant case in this area of law. A well-known figure in the entertainment industry sought an injunction to restrain the publication of a story alleging that he, a married man, had engaged in a three-way sexual encounter with another couple (neither of whom were his spouse). While the High Court refused the injunction, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.
It was held that there is no legitimate public interest in disclosing or publishing details of purely private sexual encounters, even when these involve adultery or multiple participants simultaneously, building upon the reasoning established in the Mosley case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court did not share the Court of Appeal’s willingness to identify a public interest element in scrutinising the claimant’s infidelity. The Supreme Court firmly dismissed the notion that alleged infidelity could justify media intrusion, stating that such criticism does not constitute a legitimate public interest and cannot be used to legitimise the publication of salacious ‘kiss-and-tell’ stories.
Conclusion
Nearly twenty years on, Mosley remains a foundational case in English privacy law. It affirmed that individuals maintain strong privacy rights in their personal lives, irrespective of their public status, and that a reasonable expectation of privacy extends beyond traditional confidential relationships. The case also highlighted critical issues in protecting privacy in the digital era: once information is disseminated online, it is often difficult to find sufficient legal remedies.
The Mosley case taught the importance of immediate action; even though Mosley sought an injunction within days, it was denied because the material had already spread so widely online that the court felt an order would serve no practical purpose. As a result, swift action is essential.
Nath Solicitors frequently represent high-profile individuals, including celebrities, in sensitive privacy matters. Our team is skilled at handling media intense situations discreetly and effectively and are experienced in obtaining court injunctions at short notice when the situation demands it.
Why Choose Nath Solicitors
At Nath Solicitors, we have significant experience of making applications for injunctions in a wide range of legal contexts. If you need advice or assistance, please contact us on 0203 983 8278 or get in touch with the firm online.