IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.HQ08X01303

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

B E T W E E N:-

MAX MOSLEY Claimant

- and -

NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED Defendant

__________________________________________

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

__________________________________________

1. The Claimant is the President of Formula One's governing body, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile ("the FIA").

2. The Defendant is the publisher of The News of the World, a national Sunday tabloid newspaper, which enjoys a circulation of over 3 million copies, and a readership far in excess of that figure, within this jurisdiction. The Defendant also owns and operates a website on which it reproduces material from the hard copy version of the newspaper which is readily accessible via the worldwide internet at the address, www.newsoftheworld.co.uk. References herein to the state of mind of the Defendant are references to its editorial staff and those responsible for the decision to publish the material complained of.

3. On the front page and on pages 4 and 5 of the issue of the said newspaper for 30^th March 2008, the Defendant published or caused to be published an article entitled "F1 BOSS MAX MOSLEY HAS SICK NAZI ORGY WITH 5 HOOKERS", a copy of which is attached hereto, marked Appendix A, ("the Article").

4. The Article contained the following information ("the Information") and images ("the Images") relating to the Claimant's private life:

"The Information"

1. The Claimant's visit to the Chelsea flat on 28^th March 2008 and the events which took place inside the private flat on that date.

2. The sexual and other (sado-masochistic or "S&M") activities which took place between the Claimant and the five women who were present in the flat and consensually participated in these private activities, respectively referred to for the purposes of this action as: "Woman A"; "Woman B"; "Woman C"; "Woman D" and "Woman E".

3. The contents of the conversations or other communications which took place between the Claimant and/or the said Women inside the flat.

"The Images"

(d) a series of photographs of the Claimant on page 4 bearing the following captions:

(i) "FASTET SLAP: Racing boss Mosley wallops one of the squealing hookers with leather paddle";

(ii) "SO SICK: In the midst of one beating, a panting Mosley watches one hooker take off her Nazi uniform";

(iii) "TWISTED GAME: Hooker ticks off SS-style inspection sheet. Mosley has called himself 'Tim Barnes' to earn extra punishment";

(iv) "IN CHAINS: Mosley lies face down on the bed trussed up before his punishment".

(e) a further series of photographs of the Claimant on page 5 bearing the following captions:

(i) "TAKE ZAT!: Formula One supreme Mosley is bent naked and chained over the torture bench in the S&M dungeon as one of the hookers lays into his bare buttocks so hard with a cane he needed a dressing to cover the wounds";

(ii) "SINISTER: Hooker in mock death camp clothes is gagged";

(iii) "TEA-TIME: Mosley after orgy".

5. The Article was also reproduced in the same or almost identical form (including the said Images) on the Defendant's website from 30^th March 2008 onwards, and was thereby published to a substantial but necessarily unidentifiable number of readers in this jurisdiction. The Defendant also posted on the website an easily accessible video recording of some of the events which took place at and inside the Chelsea flat on 28^th March 2008, including but not limited to the Images referred to in paragraphs 4(d) and (e) above, ("the Secret Footage").

6. For the avoidance of doubt, for the purposes of these proceedings, the Claimant restricts his claim in relation to the publications of the Article, whether in hard copy or on the Defendant's website solely to publication within England and Wales.

7. The aforesaid Information, Images and Secret Footage were private or confidential, and/or fell within the scope of the Claimant's private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; alternatively, the Claimant had a reasonable expectation that the Information, Images and Secret Footage was private (whether true or false, but presented as true) and would remain so. In further support of this, the Claimant will rely on the following:

(a) The self-evidently personal, sensitive and private nature of the Information, Images and Secret Footage.

(b) The events took place inside a private flat (and not a "torture dungeon" as suggested in the Article) and were not publicly visible in any way.

(c) The fact that the material had clearly derived from one of the Women who had willingly participated in these activities, believed to be Woman E. The Claimant will refer to the clear understanding and agreement between those participating that their activities were private and confidential, and should be treated and respected as such (for example, by the use of pseudonyms).

(d) The material complained of was therefore disclosed in breach of this clear understanding and agreement and/or the relationship of mutual trust and confidence which had been created and existed between the Claimant and all of the Women, including Woman E.

(e) In particular, the Images and Secret Footage were obtained illicitly, without the consent or authorisation (let alone the knowledge) of the Claimant or Woman A, B, C or D. Similarly, the material was also provided to the Defendant by or through Woman E without such consent or authorisation. The Claimant will invite the Court to draw the inescapable inference that the Defendant knew or ought to have known this prior to publication.

(f) Pending disclosure and/or the supply of further information, the Claimant is unable further to particularise the circumstances in which the Secret Footage was obtained and/or provided to the Defendant (described in the Article as "our investigators obtained a graphic video"), including the precise method by which the footage was recorded, the identity of the provider of the recording equipment and the exact means by which it was obtained by or supplied to the Defendant.

(g) Further, the Article itself explicitly refers to the Information as "secret", and therefore private and confidential.

8. The publication of the Information, Images and Secret Footage referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 above was wrongful and constituted a breach of confidence, an unjustified infringement of the Claimant's right to privacy and a misuse of private information. The Claimant will further rely on the following matters in support of this contention:

(a) The Claimant did not consent to the publication of the Information, Images or Secret Footage.

(b) Although he has achieved considerable standing in his professional career as one of the governing officials of Formula One, the Claimant does not hold any public office or perform any public duties.

(c) The publication of the Information, Images and Secret Footage was not properly capable of contributing to a legitimate debate in a democratic society relating to matters of public interest.

(d) Further and in any event, the material was unrelated to his professional role, let alone the exercise of any official function, but instead was entirely personal and private in nature.

(e) The Claimant has not sought publicity for his private (let alone his sex) life. He is, and has been, keen to avoid providing information or details about his private life to the press or media. This includes information about his wife and children.

(f) In breach of Clause 3(i) of the Press Complaints Commission ("PCC") Code, the Defendant has failed to respect the Claimant's private life but has published private information concerning the Claimant without justification.

9. Further, and without prejudice to the burden of proof (which falls squarely upon the Defendant in this regard), the Claimant's case is that there was no justification at all for the unwarranted intrusion into his private life by the publication of the Information, Images or Secret Footage:

(a) Sub-paragraphs 7(a) to 7(e) and 8(a) to 8(e) above are repeated.

(b) The Information, Images and Secret Footage were disclosed to the Defendant by Woman E in return for financial reward (from the Defendant), as opposed to for any legitimate purpose. Pending disclosure or further information, it is to be inferred that such reward was substantial.

(c) Further, at no stage did Woman E seek the Claimant's permission (or the permission of any of the other women who participated) to disclose such Information, Images or Secret Footage, nor did she warn him in advance before infringing his rights (or the rights of the others) in such a flagrant and unilateral manner.

(d) The Defendant also failed to seek the Claimant's permission to publish the material, or to warn him in advance of the same.

(e) Instead the Defendant took the calculated decision to publish the Information, Images and Secret Footage to its readership in the most sensational and salacious manner possible and for the purpose of titillating and satisfying the curiosity of the Defendant's readership regarding the Claimant's private life. The Claimant will rely upon the sensationalistic and lurid tone of the Article, as well as the use of deeply provocative and offensive headlines and captions.

(f) For these reasons, the Claimant will contend that his Article 8 rights far outweigh any Article 10 right which the Defendant might claim in the Information, Images or Secret Footage, which right (even if claimed) is of little or no value.

(g) Further, any such right was undermined by the false and wholly spurious suggestion that this was a 'Nazi' orgy and the sexual activities were part of the Claimant's Nazi fantasy. This suggestion had been deliberately fabricated by the Defendant in a dishonest attempt to provide justification for (what it realised full well was) the blatant invasion of the Claimant's private life and misuse of his private information. The Claimant will refer by way of example to the use in the Article of knowingly untrue statements such as "Nazi orgy", "Auschwitz garb", "death camp role-play" and "SS-style inspection sheet" as part of a manifestly disingenuous and offensive attempt by the Defendant to lend a false air of credibility to the 'Nazi' sting.

(h) Given the otherwise gratuitous inclusion in the Article of reference to the Claimant's father (who had been a fascist political leader in the early part of the twentieth century), it is to be inferred that the Defendant deliberately and dishonestly fabricated the suggestion that these S&M activities were part of a 'Nazi' 'death camp role-play' in order to construct an (entirely self-serving) argument that the disclosure of this immensely private material was somehow in the 'public interest'. Not only was this bogus attempt at justification utterly specious but it was also obviously misconceived since the implicit accusation that the Claimant had been shown to be 'hypocritical' by the (alleged) revelation of his 'secret' 'Nazi sex games' is wholly undermined by the fact that the Defendant has not provided, nor can it provide, the necessary support for the statement that "in public [the Claimant] rejects father's evil past".

(i) In any event, nothing in the Claimant's conduct could possibly have constituted such serious misdemeanour or iniquity so as to trigger any genuine public interest in the publication of the Article.

10. By reason of the matters above, the Claimant has suffered substantial damage, distress and embarrassment and/or the Defendant has made considerable financial profit, which falls now to be calculated and disgorged and to which the Claimant is entitled.

11. In support of his claim for general, aggravated and/or exemplary damages, the Claimant will rely upon the following facts matters:

(a) The Claimant suffered grave distress and embarrassment as a result of the Article, and in particular the disclosure of this deeply intrusive and personal material. The revelation of the Claimant's most intimate sexual fantasies was seriously demeaning and humiliating. It was also extremely upsetting for his family. In short, this material should never have been published, let alone in a national newspaper.

(b) Despite the self-evidently private and sensitive nature of the material, the Defendant published it in the most blatant disregard of the Claimant's human rights. Not only did the Defendant breach the provisions of its own self-regulatory PCC Code, but it also broke the most basic tenet of responsible journalism by refusing to give him any opportunity to comment upon the material or to give him any warning prior to publication.

(c) Instead the Defendant splashed the material across the front page of the newspaper, as well as trailing it across pages 4 and 5, in the most sensational and scandalous manner possible, with extremely provocative and eye-catching headlines (such as "f1 boss has sick nazi orgy with 5 hookers", on the front page) and captions (such as "sinister: hooker in mock death camp clothes is gagged", on page 5). The Claimant will also refer to the highly disparaging tone which it adopted towards him throughout the Article. Sub-paragraph 8(e) above is repeated.

(d) The Claimant will also rely upon the Defendant's dishonest fabrication of the 'Nazi' sting, which was conceived as part of a phoney attempt to create some justification for what is (as the Defendant knew full well) a wholly unwarranted intrusion into the Claimant's private life. Sub-paragraph 9(g) and (h) above is repeated.

(e) It is to be inferred that the presentation and content of the Article as described in (c) and (d) above was intentionally designed not just to appeal to the salacious tastes of the Defendant's readership, but also to maximise its profits and attract new readers to its existing audience (especially its online readership).

(f) The Defendant's failure to contact the Claimant in advance was a deliberate and calculated decision to deprive him of any opportunity to take steps to prevent the publication complained of, as the Defendant feared he would or might do if warning had been given (as it should have been). The Claimant will further rely in support of this contention upon the fact that the Article was held back from the first edition of the newspaper, and only appeared in the second and subsequent editions.

(g) This highly unusual step of holding back the Article is capable of only one inference, namely that this was another method to ensure that there was no risk of the Claimant taking steps to prevent the publication in advance. By the time of the second edition, it would obviously have been too late to take any action at all.

(h) The Claimant will refer to these calculated decisions taken by the Defendant (which, pending disclosure and/or the supply of further information, it is to be inferred were taken at the most senior level of the Defendant) as evidence of its deliberate intent to deprive the Claimant of any real protection for his fundamental human rights and/or to further its commercial or financial interests (through the additional sales and/or increased website revenue generated by the publication of this material).

(i) As was the Defendant's intention, or at the very least an obviously foreseeable consequence of the publication of the original Article in the manner referred to above, the material complained of (or parts thereof) was repeated or republished on a massive scale throughout the media and on the internet, thereby hugely exacerbating the distress caused to the Claimant. It was equally unsurprising that the 'Nazi' sting was also picked up and given widespread coverage by others, attracting enormous and unwarranted condemnation for the Claimant. Given the enormous scale of such republication, the Claimant will provide on disclosure (currently listed for 30^th May 2008) the copies of those articles or websites which will be relied on at trial.

(j) Notwithstanding the above, and correspondence from the Claimant setting out the nature of his concerns and the damage caused to him, the Defendant has treated his complaints in the most high-handed, dismissive and offensive manner. The Claimant will refer to the following:

(i) the fact that the Defendant deliberately chose to re-post the Images and Secret Footage on its website (following their initial temporary removal) in the face of the finding by the Court, on the Claimant's application for an injunction to prevent the same, that the material was "undoubtedly" private, that there was no public interest in it, that the Nazi link "certainly appear[ed] very weak" and the publication of such material was 'demeaning' for him. The decision to re-post this material only serves to exacerbate the distress and damage caused to the Claimant, as well as to demonstrate the brazen nature of the Defendant's financial motivation. The Claimant will refer to the Defendant's own boast that the visits to its website had increased by 600% since the Secret Footage and Images had been re-posted on the site.

(ii) the tone and contents of its follow-up articles in the issue of the News of the World for 6^th April 2008, under the headlines: "My Nazi Orgy with F1 Boss", "Max Death Camp Lust" and "Undress. Maybe a few more beatings...zey need more of ze punishment". These articles included amongst other things an interview apparently provided to the Defendant by Woman E, as well as passages selected from the transcript of the recording supplied to the Defendant of the events inside the private flat. A copy of this follow-up article is attached hereto, marked Appendix B.

(iii) the emails sent by the Defendant (through its journalist, Neville Thurlbeck) on 2^nd and 3^rd April 2008 following publication of the original Article to three of the Women threatening publicly to disclose their identities unless they agreed to co-operate in this follow-up story (referred to in (ii) above), and placing further improper pressure upon them by offering them substantial financial reward in return for their disclosure of private material.

11. In all of the above premises, and particularly given the Defendant's deliberate calculation (or so it is to be inferred) that the profits and/or financial or other advantages to be gained from the publication of this material would far outweigh any award of damages which the Claimant might recover in the event that legal action was taken (which was perhaps or might have been viewed as unlikely, since publication would have already happened by the time the Claimant found out), the Claimant is entitled to and claims exemplary, as well as aggravated, damages for the Defendant's outrageous and oppressive conduct as outlined above.

12. It is contended that this punitive award should mark the gravity of the Defendant's wilful disregard of the Claimant's rights, and the Court's serious disapproval of such conduct, as well as serve as a proper deterrent to prevent other powerful organisations such as the Defendant from abusing the rights of individuals (regardless of their status) in a similar way and to teach them that tort does not pay.

13. It is further contended that it is only through a sufficiently large award of damages (whether general, aggravated and/or exemplary) that the Court can ensure that in these circumstances, and in particular where no prior warning is given nor any opportunity allowed for injunctive relief to be obtained, the domestic law of confidence or privacy can provide an individual with an effective remedy for the breach of his Article 8 rights, as it is obliged to do under the Human Rights Act 1998.

12. Unless restrained by this Honourable Court the Defendant threatens and intends to breach the Claimant's confidence and/or continue to misuse the Claimant's private information in further publishing the Information, Images and/or Secret Footage, and/or other similar information, footage, sound recordings or images from or relating to the events at the Chelsea flat on 28^th March 2008, whereby the Claimant will suffer further loss and damage.

13. The Claimant is entitled to and claims interest on all sums found to be due to him pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981 or under the equitable jurisdiction of the Court.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS as against the Defendant:

(1) Damages (or an inquiry as to damages) including aggravated and exemplary damages, or alternatively, at the Claimant's option, an account of all profits obtained by the Defendant, for breach of confidence and/or invasion of privacy and/or misuse of private information caused by the publications complained of within this jurisdiction.

(2) An Order for the payment of all sums found due to the Claimant upon the taking of such inquiries or accounts.

(3) An injunction to restrain the Defendant whether acting by its directors, officers, servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from publishing, republishing, licensing, assigning, syndicating or disclosing the Information, Images and/or Secret Footage, and/or other similar information, footage, sound recordings or images from or relating to the events at the Chelsea flat on 28^th March 2008, or causing any of the same.

(4) Interest on damages or sums found to be due to the Claimant pursuant to section 35A of the Supreme Court Act 1981, or alternatively pursuant to the Court's equitable jurisdiction, to be assessed.

(5) Such further or other relief or Orders as are just and apposite.

(6) Costs.

DAVID SHERBORNE

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in the Particulars of Claim are true.

.................................................

MAX MOSLEY

Dated this 21^st day of April 2008

Served this 21^st day of April 2008 by Steeles (Law) LLP, Bedford House, 21a John Street, London WC1N 2BF, Solicitors for the Claimant.

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments