## Facts

- Max Mosley, President of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), participated in a consensual BDSM/sexual encounter with five women in a private London flat.
- One participant, using a camera supplied by the newspaper, secretly recorded video footage and provided it to News Group Newspapers Ltd, publisher of the *News of the World*.
- The newspaper published a front-page story labeling the encounter a “Nazi orgy,” printed still images, and posted the video and related material online, followed by additional coverage.
- Mosley sued in civil proceedings for breach of confidence/misuse of private information, relying on privacy rights protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; he did not bring a defamation claim.
- The defendant asserted publication was justified by public interest, including claims of a “Nazi” theme and possible illegality.

## Issues

1. Whether Mosley had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the consensual sexual and BDSM activities conducted on private premises.
2. Whether publication of the article, images, and online video constituted misuse of private information (or breach of confidence) absent a sufficient public-interest justification under Article 10.
3. Whether the alleged “Nazi” theme materially altered the Article 8/Article 10 balance or supplied a public-interest defense.
4. What compensatory damages were appropriate, and whether exemplary (punitive) damages were available for this type of claim.

## Decision

- The court held Mosley had a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding consensual adult sexual conduct occurring in private.
- The defendant’s publication of the story, images, and video was a serious and unjustified invasion of privacy and misuse of private information.
- The court rejected the assertion that the encounter was meaningfully “Nazi-themed” and held that, even if some allusions existed, they did not justify publishing intimate details and covert footage.
- The court awarded £60,000 in compensatory damages for distress, humiliation, and loss of dignity, aggravated by wide dissemination in print and online.
- The court refused exemplary damages, declining to extend punitive awards to this privacy claim beyond the limited categories recognized in English law.

## Legal Principles

- Protection for private information turns on whether the claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy; an existing confidential relationship is not required where that expectation exists.
- Consensual sexual activity between adults in a private setting is strongly protected as inherently private, including non-mainstream practices.
- Courts must balance Article 8 (privacy) against Article 10 (expression), requiring a genuine public-interest justification rather than mere public curiosity.
- Allegations offered to justify intrusion (such as political symbolism, moral condemnation, or speculative criminality) must be supported by evidence and must warrant the level of disclosure, particularly where images/video intensify intrusion.
- Compensatory damages may reflect the scale of publication and the added harm from online dissemination; exemplary damages are not generally available for privacy/misuse of private information outside narrow, established categories.

## Conclusion

The High Court found that covertly obtained and widely published details and footage of a private, consensual sexual encounter misused private information and were not justified by public interest, awarding substantial compensatory damages while declining punitive relief.


Mosley v. News Group Newspapers Ltd., [2008] EWHC 1777 (Q.B.) (Eng.)