Mosley v News Groups Newspapers [2008]

There was a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities, albeit unconventional, carried on between consenting adults on private property. The exposure by a national newspaper of sado-masochistic and some sexual activities and role play between the claimant and other consenting adult participants could not be justified on grounds of public interest and had been in breach of confidence and the claimant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8.

The claimant (M) sought damages from the defendant newspaper publisher (N) for breach of confidence and the unauthorised disclosure of personal information which infringed his rights of privacy as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8.

M was the President of the FIA. One of N's newspapers had published an article under the heading "F1 BOSS HAS SICK NAZI **** WITH 5 ******S" , accompanied by a number of captioned images, which concerned an event attended by M and five women involving sado-masochistic and some sexual activities and role play. The same information and images were published on N's website, which contained video footage relating to the same event.

The articles alleged that the sessions had a Nazi theme and mocked the way that Holocaust victims had been treated in concentration camps. A "follow up" article was published a week later, headed "EXCLUSIVE: MOSLEY ****** TELLS ALL: MY NAZI **** WITH F1 BOSS", which consisted of a purported interview with one of the women (E) who had been present at the event in question and had filmed what took place clandestinely with a hidden camera supplied by N.

M contended that the content of the published material was inherently private in nature and that there had also been a pre-existing relationship of confidentiality between the participants as they had all known each other for some time and had taken part in their activities on the understanding that they would be private and that none of them would reveal what had taken place. M alleged that E had breached that trust.

N contended that M had no reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information or images concerning the event, or alternatively that M's right to privacy under art.8 of the Convention was outweighed by a greater…