Bing wins story damages

Bing was accused of trying to discredit Liz Hurley

US film producer Steve Bing, the father of actress Liz Hurley's son Damian, has won damages from a British newspaper.

Mr Bing won "substantial" damages from the middle-market tabloid The Daily Mail over the article, headlined "Private eyes and sexual slurs - how Bing is trying to destroy Liz".

The article followed a series of negative articles by many newspapers after the producer denied Ms Hurley's paternity claim over Damian in 2001.

The Mail story said that Bing and lawyer Martin Singer had "orchestrated a vicious campaign" to try and destroy Hurley's career, Bing's lawyer Nathalie Paterson told the High Court on Wednesday.

Bing, 38, had been dating Hurley, 37, for 18 months when she became pregnant. He denied he was definitely the father, and made a statement saying the couple had not been in an exclusive relationship.

'Anti-Hurley team'

He later accepted he was the father after taking a DNA test.

Ms Paterson told the court the article had said Bing had hired an "anti-Hurley team" to try and discredit the actress, who had already appeared in hit films such as Bedazzled and Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre admitted the story was wrong

The article claimed the team included a private detective hired to try and find damaging information about Hurley so the amount of her paternity suit could be lowered.

"No such campaign was waged or orchestrated by Mr Bing or by Mr Singer on Mr Bing's behalf," Ms Paterson said.

The court heard that the Daily Mail's editor, Paul Dacre, and the journalist who had written the story, Daniel Jeffreys, had accepted that the story was untrue.

A lawyer for the newspaper said they were sorry the article had appeared and were paying the damages to British children's charities chosen by Bing.

The American producer has clashed with the British press before.

Last year he won a front page apology from tabloid The Mirror after they ran a story calling him a "sleazeball" and printing his office number, urging its readers to call him and voice their opinions.

The case went back to the court after Bing believed the over-the-top apology was not sincere - the paper also ran an article claiming that Americans did not understand irony or sarcasm in the same issue.