		<div class="wpcnt">
			<div class="wpa">
				<span class="wpa-about">Advertisements</span>
				<div class="u top_amp">
							<amp-ad width="300" height="265"
		 type="pubmine"
		 data-siteid="111265417"
		 data-section="2">
		</amp-ad>
				</div>
			</div>
		</div><p><a href="http://londonglossy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/naomi-privacy-case-fees-too-high.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-full" title="Naomi Campbell won her case against the Daily Mirror in 2004" src="http://londonglossy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/min-naomi-privacy-case-fees-too-high.jpg" alt="Naomi Campbell won her case against the Daily Mirror in 2004"/></a></p>
<p>Some of the fees the Daily Mirror had to pay supermodel Naomi Campbell after losing a lawsuit were too high, the European high court has ruled.</p>
<p>The European Court of Human Rights ruled against the paper having to pay the &#8220;success fee&#8221; the supermodel agreed to pay her lawyers on top of other legal costs, arguing it didn&#8217;t fit the offence.</p>
<p>In 2004, Naomi won her battle against the Daily Mirror, which printed photographs in 2001 showing her leaving a drug counselling meeting. Britain&#8217;s highest court ruled the paper breached the star&#8217;s privacy by running the photos and a story detailing her treatment.</p>
<p>The model testified at the time that she felt &#8220;shocked, angry, betrayed and violated&#8221; by the piece.</p>
<p>The Strasbourg court said the &#8220;success fees&#8221; were more than £365,000 as part of over £1 million in costs, and called them disproportionate.</p>
<p>The judges said there is a risk to media reporting and freedom of expression if the potential costs of defending a case risked putting pressure on the media and newspaper publishers to settle cases that could have been defended.</p>
<p>British libel laws place the burden of proof on the defendant to show what it published was true. But many other countries &#8211; including the US &#8211; require plaintiffs to prove a published article was both false and written with malicious intent. </p>
<p>&#8220;This judgment is a clarion call for the UK judiciary to put libel costs under the microscope,&#8221; said media law specialist Mark Stephens, who helped prepare a submission on free speech to the Strasbourg court and called the ruling an &#8220;amazingly good result&#8221;.</p>
<p>The Daily Mirror welcomed the ruling, saying that after a long hard fight it has &#8220;been proved right&#8221; about success fees.</p>
			<div style="padding-bottom:15px;" class="wordads-tag" data-slot-type="belowpost">
				<div id="atatags-dynamic-belowpost-69e4d71a9d110">
					<script type="text/javascript">
						window.getAdSnippetCallback = function () {
							if ( false === ( window.isWatlV1 ?? false ) ) {
								// Use Aditude scripts.
								window.tudeMappings = window.tudeMappings || [];
								window.tudeMappings.push( {
									divId: 'atatags-dynamic-belowpost-69e4d71a9d110',
									format: 'belowpost',
								} );
							}
						}

						if ( document.readyState === 'loading' ) {
							document.addEventListener( 'DOMContentLoaded', window.getAdSnippetCallback );
						} else {
							window.getAdSnippetCallback();
						}
					</script>
				</div>
			</div>
Discover more from London Glossy Post
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
