Proposals which could see newspapers forced to pay their opponents' legal costs even if they win in court are “eminently fair”, according to Max Mosley.

The Government is currently consulting on whether to implement measures contained within Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which could see newspapers not signed up to an officially-recognised regulator pay the legal costs of both sides in libel and privacy actions brought against them.

Newspapers that are part of a recognised regulator would be exempt from the measures.

Mr Mosley, the former motor racing boss who was a victim of a newspaper sting, is a financial backer of Impress, a new press regulator set up in the wake of the Leveson Inquiry, which has received formal approval from the Press Recognition Panel.

He insisted Section 40 should be implemented despite concerns from the press that it would effectively blackmail publications into signing up to a state-backed regulator.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: “The principle is this, that if, let's say, an individual hasn't got a lot of money, wants to sue a newspaper, particularly a big newspaper, then it's a little bit as if you and I are going on a journey and I can only afford a bus because I haven't got a lot of money, you are rich and you can afford a Rolls-Royce and you insist on going in a Rolls-Royce.

“It's perfectly fair for me then to say 'okay, we will go in the Roller, but you should pay for it'.

“If a newspaper insists on the luxury of a high court hearing then they pay both sides, but if they go to the thing that's the whole point of Section 40, which is the inexpensive arbitration between them and the claimant, then it costs nobody anything, and of course that's hugely beneficial to small newspapers, local newspapers, because if somebody rich takes them on it's very intimidating, whereas if they can say to the rich person, 'if you have got the money to sue us that's fine, but we insist on going to inexpensive arbitration'.

“If the rich individual refuses then he pays the costs of both sides. It seems to me eminently fair.”

Most newspapers have signed up to rival regulator the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), the press-funded body which has not sought official recognition, and would therefore be faced with paying plaintiffs' costs under the Section 40 provisions.

Mr Mosley insisted Impress is “completely independent” of his influence despite his financial backing.

The Government is also consulting on whether the second part of the Leveson Inquiry which would look at wrongdoing in the police and press should go ahead.

Mr Mosley said part two of the phone hacking inquiry is still necessary.

He said: “You cannot sweep under the carpet a major newspaper group having a very corrupt relationship with a very large police force of which we have seen part, just the tip of the iceberg, during those trials.”

Consultation is due to come to an end on January 10.