Peaches Geldof wins substantial and undisclosed damages from a newspaper following its false claims that she was a prostitute
Peaches Geldof has been awarded substantial and undisclosed damages from a newspaper which falsely implied that the 20-year-old was a prostitute.
The Daily Star ran a front-page story with the headline, 'Peaches: Spend the night with me for £5K', which they today came to accept implied Peaches "provided services of a personal sexual nature for the payment of a fee".
The socialite originally complained to the Press Complaints Commission, which prompted a printed apology in the tabloid.
But Peaches was dissatisfied with the response, with her solicitor Jonathan Coad explaining earlier: "The defendant refused to publish a retraction and apology on its front page but instead published it on page two. As the publication was substantially smaller, the claimant considered this to be unacceptable as it was not, in her view, adequately prominent.
"The Press Complaints Commission adjudicated upon the prominence and found it to be proportionate. It is for this reason that the claimant now wishes to make this statement in open court to make the falsity of this allegation a matter of public record."
The paper has also agreed to pay her legal costs. Don't spend it all in Topshop, Peaches...
Peaches Geldof has been awarded substantial and undisclosed damages from a newspaper which falsely implied that the 20-year-old was a prostitute.
The Daily Star ran a front-page story with the headline, 'Peaches: Spend the night with me for £5K', which they today came to accept implied Peaches "provided services of a personal sexual nature for the payment of a fee".
The socialite originally complained to the Press Complaints Commission, which prompted a printed apology in the tabloid.
But Peaches was dissatisfied with the response, with her solicitor Jonathan Coad explaining earlier: "The defendant refused to publish a retraction and apology on its front page but instead published it on page two. As the publication was substantially smaller, the claimant considered this to be unacceptable as it was not, in her view, adequately prominent.
"The Press Complaints Commission adjudicated upon the prominence and found it to be proportionate. It is for this reason that the claimant now wishes to make this statement in open court to make the falsity of this allegation a matter of public record."
The paper has also agreed to pay her legal costs. Don't spend it all in Topshop, Peaches...
