Mr Justice Eady awards damages to Max Mosley in his case against the News of the World but states that the FIA has to accept some responsibility.

The judge presiding over Max Mosley's High Court case against the News of the World has ruled in favour of the FIA president, but has stated that the 68-year-old has to accept some responsibility for what happened.

Mr Justice Eady ruled against the British tabloid following the case, which was brought by Mosley following the 'papers article on 30 March this year which accused him of being involved in a 'Nazi-style sex orgy' with five prostitutes in a Chelsea apartment.

Mosley denied from the outset that there were any Nazi connotations involved in the incident, with the News of the World's case collapsing when the prostitute who had sold her story failed to appear in court.

The other four women involved gave evidence for Mosley during the case denying the Nazi claims and while Mr Justice Eady ruled that his exploits had been 'unconventional', he ruled that there was no evidence to back up the New of the World's claims and that there had been no justification for the invasion of privacy that had occurred.

"I decided that the Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities (albeit unconventional) carried on between consenting adults on private property," the Judge's ruling read. "I found that there was no evidence that the gathering on 28 March 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.

"There was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S&M behaviour. But there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of the video extracts on the News of the World website - all of this on a massive scale. Of course, I accept that such behaviour is viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, but in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that does not provide any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of the Claimant.

"It has to be recognised that no amount of damages can fully compensate the Claimant for the damage done. He is hardly exaggerating when he says that his life was ruined. What can be achieved by a monetary award in the circumstances is limited. Any award must be proportionate and avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. I have come to the conclusion that the right award, taking all these considerations into account, is £60,000."

However Mr Justice Eady also pointed out that Mosley had to accept some responsibility for his activities being made public in the 30 March exposé with the FIA president having been previously warned on more than one occasion that he may have been under surveillance from an un-named group - although there was no suggestions that this group was had any connection to the News of the World or the prostitute who sold her story, known only as Woman E.

"To what extent is he the author of his own misfortune?" he explained. "Many would think that if a prominent man puts himself, year after year, into the hands (literally and metaphorically) of prostitutes (or even professional dominatrices) he is gambling in placing so much trust in them. There is a risk of exposure or blackmail inherent in such a course of conduct.

"In this particular case, the evidence is that the Claimant had received a warning from Lord Stevens that he was being watched by some unidentified group of people hostile to him. This was at the end of February. He had also received a similar tip from Mr Bernie Ecclestone in January. He had taken the matter sufficiently seriously to arrange instruction for himself in spotting or avoiding surveillance. Yet he continued to arrange parties, such as those on 8 and 28 March, knowing of the heightened risk.

"To a casual observer, therefore, and especially with the benefit of hindsight, it might seem that the Claimant's behaviour was reckless and almost self-destructive. This does not excuse the intrusion into his privacy but it might be a relevant factor to take into account when assessing causal responsibility for what happened. It could be thought unreasonable to absolve him of all responsibility for placing himself and his family in the predicament in which they now find themselves. It is part and parcel of human dignity that one must take at least some responsibility for one's own actions.

"On the other hand, I have no evidence to suggest that the surveillance he was warned against had any connection with Woman E or the News of the World."