Could Cole win kill kiss-and-tell?

At no point has Ashley Cole denied sleeping with an Essex hairdresser, who vomited on the way to his house, but nonetheless he says the reporting of this extra-marital affair by the Daily Mirror and The Sun has cruelly infringed his privacy, as well as damaging his standing with his wife, Cheryl.

So the Chelsea and England footballer is assembling his team of three barristers with an energy reminiscent of his previous manager Jose Mourinho during the pre-season transfer market. Except that, unlike Chelsea, Cole doesn't have to pay for his "signings".

Cole, who is seeking damages of up to £200,000 in respect of eight Mirror stories published in January and February this year, plus a further £200,000 from The Sun, contends that his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, outweigh the newspapers's rights of freedom of expression under Article 10. He also claims that his rights overrule those of hairdresser Aimee Walton, and two other women, to talk about their alleged affairs with the footballer.

The scale of the case and the likely costs incurred mean that the outcome has major implications for the tabloid press and its future use of so-called "kiss-and-tell" stories. Cole's solicitor, Graham Shear, says that some of the allegations against his client are "substantially untrue" but claims that this case is "about the tabloid business model, and having less kiss and tell".

Media observers agree that the high-stakes case case could rein in the tabloid press in an area that has traditionally produced some of its juiciest tales. "Victory for Ashley Cole would finish 'kiss and tell' celebrity stories for good," says Professor Eric Barendt, Goodman Professor of Media Law at University College London. "If the [Naomi] Campbell case was a narrow win for the supermodel, this would be: footballers 6, the tabloids 0."

Marital infidelity is something that Mediterranean Europeans see as an essentially private matter. But in Britain, tabloid newspapers have long peddled sexual scandal, sometimes provoking uproarious laughter, sometimes ethical debate. Ever since the English courts began applying a European privacy law, Graham Shear has been up in front of the duty judges, protecting politicians from the smears of tabloids.

Shear has taken the case on with a "no win, no fee" agreement which means if he loses, he gets nothing, but if he wins he may be able to feast on costs. Cole's legal team, if it wins, are able to put in a bill for double their total costs (and his team of barristers are all-star). In addition, the papers would, of course, be liable to pay damages to the footballer himself, as well as their own costs.

"No win, no fee", or conditional fee agreements, show how legislation can be used for purposes beyond those intended. In introducing CFAs, the then government believed it was enabling lawyers to take cases on for the poor, allowing them to recover up to double their costs if they won. In many cases, notably personal injury ones, the scheme has worked well. But the original idea has grown to the point that rich claimants have taken advantage of CFAs, particularly to take on the tabloids. Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, says: "The idea that rich and famous people can get free use of the law with the media picking up exaggerated bills totally destroys the balance of the law and therefore undermines justice."

Cole's leading barrister, Hugh Tomlinson QC, is a veteran privacy crusader. Alongside him is the heavy-hitting David Sherborne, who has also protected the private lives of the famous. Lorna Skinner is the third barrister in Cole's team. The case, in which he takes on the two of the biggest-selling daily newspapers in Britain, looks set to define legal and newspaper history. So why is Graham Shear taking the case on a CFA, for a footballer who earns millions a year? He says: "I am a lawyer who undertakes risk assessment and management. Firstly, to protect my client and secondly, to make newspapers think twice before breaching my clients' right to privacy and/or defaming them."