Max Mosley wins News of the World case
Max Mosley has won £60,000 compensation in his case against the News of the World for invasion of privacy.
However the FIA President failed in his bid to extract exemplary punitive damages from the newspaper.
Mr Justice Eady said:
I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on March 28 2008 was intended to be an enactment of Nazi behaviour or adoption of any of its attitudes. Nor was it in fact. I see no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants mocked the victims of the Holocaust.
The News of the World’s informant ‘Woman E’ failed to testify during the proceedings. The QC for the newspaper said she did not appear because of her “emotional and mental state”.
Download the Max Mosley vs News of the World verdict (PDF)
More of the coverage from the proceedings of the case can be found on the forum: Max Mosley vs News of the World trial
Alex Cooper said on 24th July 2008, 14:19
Agree with you there, Journeyer.
And this then ties in with yesterday’s post over the British Grand Prix. What sort of government is going to put money into a sport that is regulated by the office of Max Mosely?
Dan M said on 24th July 2008, 14:20
@peterg
“Looked at another way, F1 is the victor……he can’t show his face at most GP’s.”
I think its just the opposite, F1 is the biggest loser in this… I have somewhat lost interest because the sport it becoming a sped’ed soap opera and not the technological peak of racing it once was.
Will Max now be donating $100 million to the FIA? Surly this damaged the sport.
KB said on 24th July 2008, 14:46
Just goes to show, its no one elses business other than those invovled…..GO MAX YOU ROCK LOL
verasaki said on 24th July 2008, 14:53
might cover some of the legal fees if his wife decides to give him the heave-ho.
Polak said on 24th July 2008, 16:50
I wonder if “Woman E” is resting her mind at some exotic island paradise right now. If the Nazi thing was true then I’m sure she was paid off.
M Smith said on 24th July 2008, 18:41
A win for the press!
Yes, Max Mosley has damaged Formula One with this debacle, but this court case has probably reined in the press a little bit in what they are willing to do.
Green Flag said on 24th July 2008, 19:12
The liars lost. Well done & congratulations, Max.
Arnet said on 24th July 2008, 19:31
I’m not really that surprised, but I don’t think this is over. I don’t find the Perverts private life at all interesting, but I am a political junkie, so on that level, we still have to ask, qui bono? Someone paid to have Max spied on. Who and why?
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_3859895,00.html
GeorgeK said on 24th July 2008, 20:35
Max Mosley, FIA president for life. They deserve what
they’ve elected to keep.
I find it interesting that Jackie Stewart has come out with a fresh call for his resignation. We’ll see how Max plays this one out.
Patricia Albright said on 24th July 2008, 21:31
Everyone is reading about this case today because it involves a public figure who sued, but I’d like to make the point that ordinary sex workers, who are not in the public eye, are being exposed by the media all the time in the name of sensational sex stories. Tabloid newspapers especially frequently run articles exposing ordinary “working girls”, despite the fact it is not against the law to work as an escort and thus these ladies have committed no crime. The lives of many sex workers in the UK and Ireland have been ruined by this type of journalism. Last month, in Ireland, a TV show exposed two separate independent escorts on national TV for apparently no reason other than salacious TV. I don’t know if today’s verdict will discourage this type of journalism but I hope it will.
Chaz said on 24th July 2008, 21:47
I can’t believe I’m saying this but “WELL DONE MAX”. The verdict was correct and sets a great precedent adding towards the tabloids having to ease off their persistent and blatant invasion of privacy as we see everyday (and especially Sundays) when one opens the reprehensible and flagrant articles in the red tops.
And regarding his sexual appetite and preference, well just look at the top shelves of any news stand and clearly many other people also enjoy this and many other varied types of sexual practices and activities. The market is huge for this.
It’s interesting how hypocritical many have become and yet I’m sure in many cases there is surely the usual ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ scenario (i.e. most people would not like to discuss their own sexual fantasies and habits and I’m sure there are many skeletons too especially for those of a weak disposition or constitution).
Lastly, what particularly amuses me is the adverts for all types of sexual gratification (including what Max did) are in the classifieds of these very papers, lol?!
Oddball said on 24th July 2008, 22:56
A lot of very good points have been made in this thread – both by protagonists as well as antagonists of Mad Max. Personally I (and I’m a self-confessed conspiracy theorist) think a most iterresting point was raised by Polak (#20)…
Regardsless, I (and probably a lot of others) will struggle have lost a lot respect for him. Come to think of it; I duidn’t actually have any to start off with…
An old trick in negotiations and other types of dealings with people of authority is to imaginary undressing them – as in visualising them in the buff. How much easier hasn’t that now been made for us in the case of Mad Max? Personally I’d just bring to mind that priceless statement “I zink she needs more off ze punishment!” :-)
michael counsell said on 25th July 2008, 4:41
Godwin’s Law has been upheld. All is good.
tel said on 25th July 2008, 10:25
Max has suffered undue distress due to exposure of his private life. Surely an enthusiast for S&M activities would pay good money for this kind of treatment. Should News International be billing him?
DG said on 25th July 2008, 12:16
I am now more worried about the possibilies this opens up for the media and the public in general.
The ruling basically is saying that if you are a celebrity then you have no right to have your private life made public. So surely the converse side is that everyone who isn’t a celebrity can have their private life made public!
This could mean the end of decent insights into the characters of our fravourite racing drivers (I can see Hamilton Senior using this to his advantage for one).
And although it has hopefully drawn a line under the whole affair, there is still the remaining question of why, since Max was fighting for privacy, did he make an FIA public vote depend on who supported his views on this?