The kiss and tell story, based on an interview with Lord Coe's former mistress Vanessa Lander, was published just days after Lord Coe was put in charge of London's 2012 Olympic bid, and hours after a court hearing to determine whether publication could go ahead.
On Saturday night Mr Justice Fulford ruled in favour of the Sunday Mirror and the Mail on Sunday, explaining, according to a report in the Guardian Newspaper:
"One of the balancing acts to be performed is the need to protect Lord Coe's private interests weighed against the freedom of the press and against what is said to be a matter of public interest.
"In all the circumstances I don't find that this was a situation in which he could expect his privacy to be protected, and accordingly I do not agree that the test – that he had a real prospect that publication should not be allowed – was satisfied."
The case goes some way towards dampening speculation that the courts are developing a law of privacy in the UK, which surfaced following a House of Lords ruling in favour of Naomi Campbell.
Campbell had been suing the Daily Mirror for breach of confidentiality and violation of the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act, after the paper published an article detailing the supermodel's attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and printed photographs of her leaving such a meeting.
In May the House of Lords found in her favour, albeit in a majority ruling restricted to the particular circumstances of the case – notably the medical nature of the revelations. But as Lord Hoffman (who voted against the appeal) stated:
"the importance of this case lies in the statements of general principle on the way in which the law should strike a balance between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression, on which the House is unanimous."
According to The Guardian, Lord Coe's QC, Patrick Milmo, argued before the High Court that the Campbell case meant that details about Lord Coe's private life could not be 'misused'.
But Mr Justice Fulford could not be persuaded that the Campbell ruling should be extended from the granting of a right to privacy in connection with medical treatment, to one granting privacy in respect of an illicit affair.
Paul Mottram, the Sunday Mirror's legal adviser commented:
"This is an important day for the freedom of the press. It shows that even after the Naomi Campbell case, people cannot expect to have affairs and run to the court to keep it quiet."
Dr. Chris Pounder, a privacy specialist with Masons, the law firm behind OUT-LAW.COM, commented:
"The ruling reflects the different facts of the case. In a kiss and tell story, who the participants are and their responsibilities or previous public statements are important factors. Additionally, the telling person usually has direct experience of the events being reported and in cases involving sex, the Courts have recognised that confidentiality within an affair might not be the same as confidentiality within a marriage. All these factors have to be assessed before one person's freedom of expression can be balanced against another individual's expectation of privacy.
"This contrasts with the Campbell case which was not about sex. The story essentially focused on her alone and information about her rehabilitation from an addictive habit were obtained in a setting which was obviously confidential. Additionally, there was no 'other' person telling of his or her involvement in a drug-taking experience."