241 Pizza

"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," he 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 judge also flatly rejected the argument of the newspaper that there was any public interest or defence in recording the activities.

"There was bondage, beating and domination which seem to be typical of S and M behaviour," he said.

"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."

The judge rejected Mr Mosley's application for exemplary or punitive damages, which he said was not legitimate in this case.

“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," he said.

“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."

Colin Myler, editor of the News of the World, said after the ruling that the press was now “less free”.

“As the elected head of the FIA, Mr Mosley is the leader of the richest sport in the world, with a global membership of almost 125 million," he said.

“This newspaper has always maintained that because of his status and position he had an obligation to honour the standards which his vast membership had every right to expect of him."

He added that Mr Justice Eady had been acting on privacy laws inflicted by judges in Europe. “English judges are left to apply those laws to individual cases here using guidance from judges in Strasbourg who are unfriendly to freedom of expression. The result is that our media are being strangled by stealth,” he said.

Media commentators have warned that the judgment may set a precedent that will damage investigative journalism, but the judge claimed that there was nothing "landmark" about the decision. It was just an application of unusual facts to established principles, he said.

Neither could it be suggested that the case was likely to inhibit serious investigative journalism into crime and wrongdoing where the public interest was "genuinely engaged", Mr Justice Eady added.

The £60,000 award is a new record for damages for a breach of privacy in a case decided by a court. The previous highest sum was £14,600 awarded to Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas over unauthorised use of their wedding pictures in Hello magazine, in May 2003.

Out-of-court settlements have gained higher sums, but even there the highest to an individual was £50,000 damages paid to Sara Cox, the Radio One disc jockey, over pictures published of her and her husband when on honeymoon.

A settlement of £58,000 was agreed to be paid to Elizabeth Hurley, Hugh Grant and Arun Nayar by Big Pictures (UK) Ltd, Eliot Press SARL, Associated Newspapers and News Group Newspapers for invasion of privacy while on their holiday in the Maldives.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• How I lost the gift of joy for a while
• Why Ann Widdecombe has got it wrong
• Alas, it’s the end of the road for petrolheads