In a dramatic conclusion to a highly controversial case,  Mr Justice Eady gave judgement yesterday in favour of Max Mosley when he ruled that the News of the World had no justification to film him in a sex session with five hookers and then publish it on a 'massive scale', embellished with claims he had acted as a concentration camp commandant and cowering prisoner.

He ruled there was no evidence to prove the Nazi allegation and that the father-of-two, who is the son of 1930s Fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, had a right to privacy over his 'albeit unconventional' sexual activities.

In his judgement, he said it was 'highly questionable' whether the ancient principle of 'there is no confidence in iniquity' - meaning the wronged party could expose their partner's infidelity without impunity - applied in the modern world when it came to consensual sex between adults in private.

Although the award of £60,000 was a record (beating Liz Hurley Hugh Grant and Aran Nayar's combined £58,000 damages for breach of their confidentiality by a picture agency) it does not make new law even if it is perhaps rightly seen as a further blow against the freedom of the press.

There are however some curious aspects to the case. Interestingly, Mosley chose to sue not for libel (which is what claimants who seek to clear the name usually do) but for breach of privacy. One of the consequences of this was that the case was heard by a judge alone rather than by a jury.

Secondly, whilst the identity of his female accomplices was protected, the court's power to hold the hearing in private was not invoked in this case (CPR 39.(3) (a) provides for proceedings to be heard in private where publicity would defeat the purpose of the hearing).

Thirdly and I think most curiously of all, if the complaint was that the News of the World had dragged the sordid details of Max Mosley's private life into the public eye, how was a 2 week trial reported in the national press on a daily basis ever going to provide him with a remedy (apart from enabling him to donate £60,000 to a road safety campaign as he has pledged to do and to make his lawyers significantly richer)?