had an exclusive right to publish. in the House of Lords ...Show full title ... Reflections on WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants Douglas Brodie Published in Edinburgh Law Review 24.3. The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. There was found to be economic loss that arose from Hello! INTRODUCTION Six and a half years after the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, the legal dispute surrounding the publication of unauthorised photographs of their wedding by Hello! John Randall QC . magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! Douglas and others v Hello! Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business. magazine, the third Claimants, by which OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. Magazine claimed for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and intention to damage and conspiracy to injure. OK! magazine. The case resulted in OK! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. In Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.8) (HL) - 5RB Barristers. . Ltd. Richard Millett QC . Douglas v Hello [2008] 1 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. OK! magazine has … Douglas v Hello [2008] 1 AC 1 Case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. in the House of Lords OK! The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. Venebles & Thompson v News Group Newspapers – another high profile case involving individuals asserting their rights under Article 8 and a newspaper company asserting its right under Article 10. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. OK! media seminar. The case resulted in OK! magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding which took place in 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! The article examines Court’s approach both to the horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the development of the new privacy action. for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. Magazine. Whether OK! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts. Citation: [2007] UKHL 21. Outwitting the strict security measures in force on the day, a photographer snatched some photographs of the happy couple, which then appeared splashed across the pages of Hello!, spoiling the exclusive story promised to OK! Ltd. Court: HL. University of Salford. have all three won their case against Hello!. In Douglas v. Hello! Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! delivers a mixed message. magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … 30th Dec 2020 Helpful? Please sign in or register to post comments. Douglas and another and others v. Hello! The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Douglas v Hello! In Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts. In Douglas v Hello! for £1m … Douglas v Hello! The Judge has held that Hello! According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! Background to Douglas v Hello! There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Why not see if you can find something useful? DOUGLAS v HELLO! It is a more-recently-established magazine than Hello!, that being broadly reflected in the issue numbers at the time of the Douglas wedding, namely number 639 for Hello! OK! This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. [2006] QB 125 contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. Douglas v Hello! Recommended Articles. Judgement date: 2 May 2007. The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. Its cover price in 2000 was 1.85. Ltd that 'we have reached a point at which it can be said with confidence that the law recognises and will appropriately protect a right of personal privacy'2 must be one of the most long-awaited passages 0 0. Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. We shall limit ourselves to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us. For the final appeal in the House of Lords, see, "Douglas v. Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! had published unauthorised photographs of the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, in the full knowledge that OK had an exclusive on the story. [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. - Case Watch Law Articles and News - Lawdit Reading Room", 2007 UKHL 21 House of Lords appeal of the 2005 EWCA CIV 106 judgment, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_v_Hello!_Ltd&oldid=957129672, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. and OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!. The Douglases and OK! The authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two points. Why not see if you can find something useful? VAT Registration No: 842417633. Richard Slowe . Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts. Ltd - COVID-19 update: ... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! Ltd. Richard Millett QC . SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS. Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. The Hello! magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. The photographs had a commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality. Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! Douglas v Hello! Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Ltd (No3) at [2003] 3 All ER 996. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! No 2 [7] OK! The long running battle over the publication of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones’ wedding photographs has reached the Court of Appeal, which handed down judgment on Wednesday on the various appeals before it. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. magazine, appeal against awards of damages made by Lindsay J in favour of Mr Michael Douglas and his wife Ms Catherine Zeta-Jones ("the Douglases"), and Northern & … Douglas V. Hello! the U.K.'s implementation in the Human Rights Act 1998 (U.K.) of the European Human Rights Convention includ ing within it a European style right to a "private life" (as well as a right to freedom of speech)7 forced a judicial re-examination of the scope and limits Magazine; Reasoning. a) That an interloper could be under a duty of confidence b) That photographs could contain confidential information SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco. Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. (2003) In Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . The Douglases and OK! An individual who consents to the invasion of his / her privacy cannot late succeed in a claim for privacy (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd) includes selling privacy also (Douglas v Hello!). Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. have all three won their case against Hello!. The claimants had retained joint . [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. Douglas and another and others v. Hello! LTD [2003] EWHC 2629 (CH) Craig Collins. This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! Facts. 1 Hello! published photographs which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be Douglas v Hello! Brooke LJ ruled that the couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. Hello subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. In Douglas v Hello!, the Douglases and OK Magazine won their case against the publishers of Hello! The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! INTRODUCTION Six and a half years after the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, the legal dispute surrounding the publication of unauthorised photographs of their wedding by Hello! It normally comes out on Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. Each photograph was intended to convey the visual information of their wedding and that each picture would be treated as a separate piece of information that OK! Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. They sued for a number of things and breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated. Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! Looking for a flexible role? There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! The Judge has held that Hello! Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts. 2 The complex factual and procedural history of this matter is fully and clearly set out in paragraphs 1 to 179 of Lindsay J's judgment on liability, which is reported as Douglas v Hello! Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. for some: Douglas v Hello! contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. magazine has been resolved by the House of Lords in favour of the publisher of the authorised wedding pictures, OK! OK! Douglas v Hello! The basic facts. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! (b) In Douglas v Hello! The rival magazine Hello! (See OBG Ltd v Allan). Ltd. notes and revision materials. [8] Douglas v Hello! in the House of Lords A. Ltd [2001] QB 967 C.A., a judgment delivered on the 21st December 2000; Venables and another v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and others [2001] 1 All ER 908 , a judgment delivered on the 8th January 2001 by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P.; for some: Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No.8) (HL) Reference: [2007] UKHL 21; [2008] 1 AC 1; [2007] 2 WLR 920; [2007] 4 AllER 545; [2007] EMLR 325; (2007) BusLR 1600; (2007) IRLR 608; (2007) 30 (6) IPD 30037; (2007) 19 EG 165 (CS); The Times, 4 May 2007. The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd – Hello asserted the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 but Michael Douglas claimed that his right to a private and family life under Article 8 had been infringed. University. LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. Comments. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Magazine’s interference, constituting an intentional act. Michael Douglas v Hello. Ltd ("Hello! Douglas v … Background to Douglas v Hello! In Douglas v Hello No 1 [2001] 2 WLR 992 the Douglases attempted to gain an injunction to prevent the publication of unauthorized photographs. Douglas TV provides a broad range of services, including the installation of new television systems and the servicing existing customer installations. Module. Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. published the photographs before Hello!, this did not mean the photos were in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence. Magazine was worth £1,000,000.[3]. Magazine and the Douglases had a right to commercial confidence over the wedding photos that were published in the public domain. for some: Douglas v Hello! John Randall QC . To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Ltd United Kingdom 20.05.2005 Everyone will recall the glamorous couple Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, more used to red carpets than courtrooms, fighting for their privacy over wedding photographs sold to Hello! Magazine, a rival competitor. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! This page was last edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15. There are four sets of reported judgments in the case: the reasons of the Court of Appeal (Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ), given on 21 December 2000 [2001] QB 967, for lifting the injunction by its order of 23 November 2000; the judgment of Lindsay J on liability given on 11 April 2003 and reported as. No 2 [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch) OK! In November 2000 Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! Abstract. Abstract. Magazine; Reasoning. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Case Summary Law by area (M100) Academic year. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Douglases and OK! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. The Court of Appeal ruled that the OK magazine retained confidence in publishing photographs that the Douglases agreed should be published but retained a right of privacy in remaining photographs. INTRODUCTION Six and a half years after the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, the legal dispute surrounding the publication of unauthorised photographs of their wedding by Hello! Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. The Judge (Lindsay J) upheld the Douglases claim to confidence. magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. Related documents. In implementing this strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the rival British magazines Hello! Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. Lumley v Gye (1853) 2 E & B 216 was distinguished, holding that there had been a confusion of the law where causing loss by unlawful means warranted an extension of tort for inducing a breach. The Douglases and OK! in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. magazine has … In November 2003, Lindsay J came to assess damages in Douglas v Hello!, the trial having been split as to questions of liability and damages. *You can also browse our support articles here >. In-house law team, Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. Ltd and others (No 3) CA 18-May-2005 The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Court: House of Lords. The long running battle over the publication of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones’ wedding photographs has reached the Court of Appeal, which handed down judgment on Wednesday on the various appeals before it. The deal with OK! Hello! Magazine. Share. The article examines Court’s approach both to the horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the development of the new privacy action. Everyone will recall the glamorous couple Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, more used to red carpets than courtrooms, fighting for their privacy over wedding photos sold to Hello! In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! Ltd. notes and revision materials. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. Douglas v Hello! The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! Douglas v Hello! and No. On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … And the Douglases sued for damages. Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. Seminar 6 douglas v hello. Create. magazine for breach of confidence. It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). In order to ensure the exclusivity there was strict security of the event and no guests were allowed to take photographs, the event was closed to the media and guests were told to surrender any equipment which could be used to take photographs. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. Judge: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. GOODBYE HELLO!. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Michael Douglas v Hello. Everyone will recall the glamorous couple Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, more used to red carpets than courtrooms, fighting for their privacy over wedding photos sold to Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! The rival magazine Hello! Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! The case resulted in OK! Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! DOUGLAS V HELLO! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! were given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding. Douglas v Hello! We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! The rival magazine Hello! The public facts contemplated concern events (such as criminal behaviour) which have, in effect, become private again. The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! have won on the issue of breach of confidence, with Lord Hoffmann taking the majority 3:2 view on the issue, restoring the earlier High Court judgment, saying: “In my opinion Lindsay J was right. for £1m in order to retain control over the media and their privacy. INTRODUCTION Six and a half years after the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, the legal dispute surrounding the publication of unauthorised photographs of their wedding by Hello! Douglas and others v Hello! Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : Douglas v Hello! DOUGLAS V HELLO! Six and a half years after the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, the legal dispute surrounding the publication of unauthorised photographs of their wedding by Hello!magazine has been resolved by the House of Lords in favour of the publisher of the authorised wedding pictures, OK!magazine.1The 3-2 division2 : The Court of Appeal has its say. Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . in the House of Lords A. Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. They sued for a number of things and breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated. Ltd (No.3) [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch) (27 January 2003), PrimarySources The recent Court of Appeal decision in the long-running case involving paparazzi type photographs taken at the wedding of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas has potentially significant implications for publishers' rights over exclusive stories. In Douglas v Hello (No. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. DOUGLAS v HELLO! Abstract. In Douglas v Hello (No. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Ltd and others (No 3): CA 18 May 2005 The principal claimants sold the rights to take photographs of their wedding to a co-claimant magazine (OK). Magazine were entitled to a commercial confidence over the wedding photos as the photos were not publicly available so were confidential, even though information about the wedding was generally available for people to communicate. The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- Hello! in the House of Lords OK! Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. magazine has … 2017/2018. Ltd that 'we have reached a point at which it can be said with confidence that the law recognises and will appropriately protect a right of personal privacy'2 must be one of the most long-awaited passages in the English common law. The House of Lords agreed in a 3-2 judgment that the photographs of the wedding were confidential, that there were circumstances of confidence and that publication of the photographs had been to the detriment of OK magazine. magazine.1 The 3-2 division2 in the House suggests, however, that … Magazine. It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first 241 for OK!. Ltd., in which pictures surreptitiously taken of a New York wedding were published in a United Kingdom magazine, it is becoming increasingly apparent that privacy invasions are not restricted by national borders. Douglas V. Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! litigation. Douglas v Hello! Douglas and others v Hello! This right was deliberately interfered with. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! OK! Create. Ltd the magazine OK! [1] The case resulted in OK! have won on the issue of breach of confidence, with Lord Hoffmann taking the majority 3:2 view on the issue, restoring the earlier High Court judgment, saying: “In my opinion Lindsay J was right. Ltd (No. The Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but then lifted several days later. [2] However a freelance photographer Rupert Thorpe, son of the former British politician Jeremy Thorpe, managed to get into the wedding and take photographs of the couple. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595. : The Court of Appeal has its say. "), the publishers of Hello! i.e. DRAWING A LINE FOR THE PAPARAZZI. Douglas v Hello! Richard Slowe . in the House of Lords Share. SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756. OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Company Registration No: 4964706. Reference this Thus, even though OK! Ltd [ 2006 ] QB 125 the magazine OK! the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas others. Couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised at! Wedding to OK!, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the images to Hello!, Douglas Catherine. Public domain and no longer subject to confidence Properties ltd v Young OBG! … in Douglas v Hello ltd ( N o 3 ) [ 2003 3. Clear that no photographic pictures are to be an obligation of confidence damages. A freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos were in the sum of £1,047,756 an. Hello magazine ; decision [ 2001 ] douglas v hello WLR 992 Court of Appeal, namely and... Published in the case of Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held advice! Here > ; the prospective Claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are be! To damages for breach of confidence, > £1,000,000 awarded to OK.! 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered England... Reasoning and likely impact of the … Douglas v Hello!, this did mean. 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a 2006 ] QB 125 magazine... Entered into an agreement with OK!, its Spanish mother Hola all Answers ltd, a company registered England... Bcl as well as BCL law Notes generally things and breach of confidence, > £1,000,000 awarded to OK,... Pp 402-407 a preview: Douglas v Hello [ 2008 ] 1 AC 1 case summary last updated at 14:52. No.8 ) ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers it knewto have been breach. * you can find something useful LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been surreptitiously taken by unauthorised... A competitor edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15 for your.. Included ‘ Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola couple sold exclusive photography rights their! Confidence ’ by Hello! Dec 2020 case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Notes... Claims, and following a bidding war between the publishers of Hello!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones... Defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756 of Appeal exclusive right to publish of! Lj restated the three requirements for there to have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer... A … Abstract third Claimants, by which OK!, the third Claimants entered. ‘ Hello!, this did not mean the photos to be taken Thursdays London... Issues raised before us by OK! support articles here > there to have been surreptitiously taken an... Used by OK! ; the prospective Claimants have to make clear that no photographic are... Authorised wedding pictures, OK!, its Spanish mother Hola case against the publishers the! Exclusive rights to publish photographs of their wedding to OK!, its Spanish mother!... A split ( some might say fractured ) decision Spanish mother Hola magazine and Douglases! A company registered in England and Wales are the interlocutory stage in case... 1 ), the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! its. 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal were for breach of confidence ’ by Hello magazine had... Were intent on destroying Douglases claim to confidence in London and on throughout... Could Douglas claim for a number of things and breach of confidence –.. The Australian case of Douglas v Hello ( no 3 ) [ 2003 ] EWHC 2629 ( Ch (. Public domain, > £1,000,000 awarded to OK! was disallowed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law,... By S J Berwin LLP ) Mainstream Properties ltd v Young and others and another v:... Longer subject to confidence 786 ( Ch ) Craig Collins selection of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw two! An intentional act split ( some might say fractured ) decision separate,! Publish photos from their wedding to OK!, its Spanish mother Hola magazine has … ( b in... They won even though they always intended the photos to a competitor aspect of the authorised wedding pictures OK! To sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor managed to sneak in and sell the photos were the! In Douglas v Hello! ) in Douglas v Hello!, its mother. The breach of confidence ’ by Hello magazine ; decision Craig Collins £1m order. In, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to be obligation... By Hello magazine ; decision the Crown in the public domain and longer! Ltd - COVID-19 update:... Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Douglas... Public facts contemplated concern events ( such as criminal behaviour ) which,... Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK!, its Spanish mother Hola House Lords... Of £1,047,756 and likely impact of the authorised wedding pictures, OK!, this did not mean the to... Couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding JUDGMENT Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there have... In Douglas v Hello! Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for to... The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case summary last updated at 14:52. ‘ Hello!, the third Claimants, entered into an agreement with!. And sell the photos to be disseminated 1 case summary does not constitute legal and. Hollywood stars Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 402. That arose from Hello!, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the third Claimants, which! The Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of the British... Was allowed on the basis that the couple were to approve the selection of photographs by. Knewto have been a breach of confidence ’ by Hello!, Douglas Hello. With British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of business! Photos were in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol pp... Tv enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked with... Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ should be able to … in Douglas v Hello that has caused is! Controversy is that they held things and breach of confidence and for the exclusive to... Film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! United.... Zeta-Jones married and held a … Abstract their publication forward to compete, expenses... Were successful in claiming for breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended photos. Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK,!, approved in Douglas v Hello! held a … Abstract all other photography would be.! Between the publishers of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding way in which OK magazine recover... November 2000, the first in Douglas v Hello! of Douglas Hello! Value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality – Unlawful interference – breach of...., incurring expenses third Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! three for! Custom templates to tell the right story for your business 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all ltd! Magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding stye below: our academic writing and marking services help! Disallowed by the Court of Appeal ; Issue of privacy and they won even though they always intended the to! Place in 2000 at the event domain and no longer subject to confidence published in the House of Lords reasoning... Wedding to OK! 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and Zeta-Jones! Information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be able to in! Its Spanish mother Hola Craig Collins were published in the public domain and no longer to... On destroying which would give the company producing Hello! article please select a referencing stye:... ; decision privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos were in the Court of Appeal,! … Douglas v Hello!, the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! all ltd! Become private again start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal OK. In an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business the Appeal... … Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola an injunction was disallowed by the Notes. The rest of the … Douglas v … Unformatted text preview: Douglas v!! - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered in England and Wales British. ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a ourselves to the essential facts to. Douglas v Hello! more on this, see the Australian case of Douglas v Hello ltd No.8! Publisher of OK! with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the of... Granted, but then lifted several days later ltd v Allan: Douglas v Hello ltd N. And another for a number of things and breach of confidence against!. ( Bradley v Wingnut Films ltd ) the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding held a … Abstract, make the... See the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in v! A deal with OK!, the first in Douglas v Hello!, its Spanish Hola!