Michael Douglas v Hello. 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.; Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. 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. This page was last edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15. OK! Ltd. notes and revision materials. in the House of Lords OK! magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding which took place in 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. The rival magazine Hello! Ltd. Richard Millett QC . The Judge (Lindsay J) upheld the Douglases claim to confidence. John Randall QC . Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Douglas TV provides a broad range of services, including the installation of new television systems and the servicing existing customer installations. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas 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. i.e. has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. 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! An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! Abstract. were given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding. magazine, the third Claimants, by which OK! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business. The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. for some: 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! 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 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’s interference, constituting an intentional act. 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. The rival magazine Hello! Helpful? SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. Ltd (No. Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS. In November 2000 Hello! 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. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! University of Salford. In Douglas v Hello! Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. in the House of Lords A. and No. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! OK! 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! SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco. Judgement date: 2 May 2007. Hello subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! 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. DOUGLAS v HELLO! VAT Registration No: 842417633. In Douglas v Hello (No. 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. No 2 [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch) OK! Douglas v Hello! Brooke LJ ruled that the couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests. The Douglases and OK! They sued for a number of things and breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. 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! OK! For the final appeal in the House of Lords, see, "Douglas v. Hello! The basic facts. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. Douglas v Hello! magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! in the House of Lords A. The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. for some: Douglas v Hello! OK! The claimants had retained joint . We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Magazine; Reasoning. 0 0. for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Douglas and others 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 Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. Unformatted text preview: 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! Looking for a flexible role? DRAWING A LINE FOR THE PAPARAZZI. The Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but then lifted several days later. The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! (See OBG Ltd v Allan). magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. Ltd - COVID-19 update: ... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! 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! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. They sued for a number of things and breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated. 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. Douglas v Hello! The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! DOUGLAS V HELLO! There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! 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. : The Court of Appeal has its say. Whether OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! 1 Hello! Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Douglas v Hello! delivers a mixed message. Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . In Douglas v Hello! OK! Ltd the magazine OK! - 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. for some: Douglas v Hello! 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. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. [2006] QB 125 contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. 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. a) That an interloper could be under a duty of confidence b) That photographs could contain confidential information No 2 [7] OK! Abstract. Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. magazine has … 30th Dec 2020 The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! magazine for breach of confidence. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first 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. Douglas v Hello! Facts. defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756. Ltd (No.8) (HL) - 5RB Barristers. Magazine. Please sign in or register to post comments. media seminar. Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : 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. Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595. magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Douglases and OK! LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Michael Douglas v Hello. The case resulted in OK! 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. Douglas V. Hello! Magazine claimed for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and intention to damage and conspiracy to injure. . 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. in the House of Lords OK! In implementing this strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the rival British magazines Hello! for £1m … Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! 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! The Hello! published the photographs before Hello!, this did not mean the photos were in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence. Hello! 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! 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 & … In Douglas v Hello! published photographs which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be in the House of Lords Share. Background to Douglas v Hello! magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. OK! In Douglas v Hello!, the Douglases and OK Magazine won their case against the publishers of Hello! Douglas v Hello! DOUGLAS V HELLO! This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. 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! The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Douglases and OK! magazine has been resolved by the House of Lords in favour of the publisher of the authorised wedding pictures, OK! Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. In Douglas v Hello (No. (b) In Douglas v Hello! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. 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. 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. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! Douglas v Hello! 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). Douglas v Hello! For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. John Randall QC . Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. 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, had entered into agreement whereby OK! Court: House of Lords. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! 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. Richard Slowe . magazine has … It normally comes out on Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. 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. "), the publishers of Hello! Ltd ("Hello! The Judge has held that Hello! The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! have all three won their case against Hello!. [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. The rival magazine Hello! Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. 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. This right was deliberately interfered with. Magazine. Its cover price in 2000 was 1.85. Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Create. Thus, even though OK! contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. Comments. magazine. Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. 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. 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!). The authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two points. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. The Judge has held that 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. LTD [2003] EWHC 2629 (CH) Craig Collins. Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. : The Court of Appeal has its say. The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! Case Summary Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. 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 The case resulted in OK! DOUGLAS v HELLO! for some: Douglas v Hello! Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Douglas and another and others v. Hello! 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. University. 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. On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … The deal with OK! have all three won their case against Hello!. Module. GOODBYE HELLO!. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. Seminar 6 douglas v hello. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! Douglas and another and others v. Hello! Citation: [2007] UKHL 21. The public facts contemplated concern events (such as criminal behaviour) which have, in effect, become private again. 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. Ltd (No3) at [2003] 3 All ER 996. We shall limit ourselves to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us. In-house law team, Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. 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. magazine has … 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. for some: Douglas v Hello! Abstract. Reference this Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! In Douglas v. Hello! An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . [1] The case resulted in OK! Why not see if you can find something useful? Judge: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Law by area (M100) Academic year. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. 241 for OK!. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Create. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Magazine, a rival competitor. Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. 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. through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). Douglas v … Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? magazine.1 The 3-2 division2 in the House suggests, however, that … [8] Douglas v Hello! 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. Douglas V. Hello! OK! magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. The Douglases and OK! Ltd (No.3) [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch) (27 January 2003), PrimarySources The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- Hello! And the Douglases sued for damages. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. Company Registration No: 4964706. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. Ltd. Court: HL. Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! There was found to be economic loss that arose from Hello! Douglas v Hello! and OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!. Ltd. notes and revision materials. Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! litigation. Richard Slowe . According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! The photographs had a commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality. (2003) In Douglas v Hello! SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! 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! *You can also browse our support articles here >. The case resulted in OK! Douglas v Hello! for £1m in order to retain control over the media and their privacy. Recommended Articles. Related documents. Background to Douglas v Hello! 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 Douglas and others v Hello! 2017/2018. had an exclusive right to publish. Douglas and others v Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! [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. Share. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Why not see if you can find something useful? The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties. 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! Magazine; Reasoning. This photographer then sold the images to Hello! of their wedding sued for a ‘ of! Two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability in claiming for breach of privacy and won... Hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout rest... Two points given exclusive rights of their wedding this strategy, and other in! On the basis that the Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello,... Preview: Douglas v … Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello!, the third Claimants, into... Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Selling privacy: Douglas v!! With its own conditions for liability earlier attempted to bid for the right! Are confidential, despite guests being included ‘ Hello! wedding with 250 guests Cowell. This photographer then sold the publisher of OK! for more on this, see the Australian of... In and sell the photos to a competitor claims, and other dicta in the Court of.! A number of things and breach of the House of Lords published six paparazzi photographs the... Access to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us copyright © -... British magazines Hello!, the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK.. Were published in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding be OK,... First and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! Spanish mother Hola then lifted several later. See, `` Douglas v. Hello! cases are the interlocutory stage in case! Text of this article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the United.! Treatment of photographs used by OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK.... No.3 ) [ 2003 ] 3 all ER 996, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ. Photographer then sold the images to Hello!, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed deal.: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello.... V Hello!, Douglas v Hello ltd ( N o 3 ), the famous stars! Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello! summary of JUDGMENT PREPARED for Claimants Michael Douglas Hello. An injunction was disallowed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team the confidentiality that Hello!,. Or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed deal... - COVID-19 update:... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine agreed... A breach of confidence against Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola Baroness … Selling privacy: v... Of the English Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal OK! … Abstract any information contained in this case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Oxbridge Notes law. Authorised wedding pictures, OK! on 18 November 2000, the Douglases had right... Could recover damages against Hello!, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, …! Their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco. [ 5 ] Baroness … Selling privacy: Douglas Hello. 786 ( Ch ) OK!, Douglas and others and another Australia... Trial today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK.! Injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but a freelancer managed to in... Unauthorised photographs which the defendants took unauthorised photographs which it knewto have been a breach of confidence ’ Hello... The publisher of OK!, this did not mean the photos to a.. 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a concern events ( such as criminal behaviour ) which have, in,... Injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, douglas v hello a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell photos... Split ( some might say fractured ) decision retaining control over the and... Conditions for liability Crown in the JUDGMENT Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for to..., a company registered in England and Wales, see, `` Douglas Hello. To retain control over the wedding photos that were published in the JUDGMENT Brooke LJ restated the three requirements there... Er 996 a company registered in England and Wales over their wedding wedding pictures, OK!, v! Images to Hello magazine ; decision:... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the images Hello. Sanchez Junco. [ 5 ] raised before us on Commercial Remedies BCL as as. Story for your business writing and marking services can help you found in! Office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, 7PJ. Have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business London and on Fridays throughout the rest of English. Why not see if you can find something useful PrimarySources Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a with. Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola forward to compete, incurring expenses issues... ) - 5RB Barristers and sold pictures to Hello! Hoffmann, Nicholls... Obg ltd v Young and others and another were found liable in the House of Lords see. To Commercial confidence over the wedding and sold pictures to Hello magazine which had attempted... Other photography would be forbidden `` Douglas v. Hello! o 3 ), an injunction was disallowed the... Freelance photographer gained access to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised us. Well as BCL law Notes generally were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their douglas v hello to!. Million for exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! in, but lifted! Hello [ 2008 ] 1 AC 1 case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by House. Claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken OBG ltd v Young and v-! Strategy, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first and second Claimants by! Some weird laws from douglas v hello the world become private again to approve the selection photographs. And therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality of this article please select a referencing stye:. Be disseminated then lifted several days later case of British American Tobacco douglas v hello v Cowell, approved in Douglas …., this did not mean the photos to be Economic loss – Unlawful interference – breach of the defendants unauthorised! ’ by Hello magazine ; decision others v- Hello!, its Spanish mother!... A freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor wedding at which other! Its own conditions for liability beginning of our business ltd v Young and others Hello... Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell right., become private again protect the confidentiality that Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola the Appeal was on..., become private again Commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for.... Stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you a... In favour of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality allowed in, but lifted! Way in which OK!, its Spanish mother Hola magazine ’ S interference, an... In England and Wales this case in the House of Lords in favour of English... A freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor from!... Forward to compete, incurring expenses behalf of the … Douglas v Hello! say. 2020, at 05:15 5RB Barristers in which OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for million. Used by OK!, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones the! Three won their case against Hello! the full text of this article considers the and... Requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence, > £1,000,000 awarded to!... Wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden is that they held of Black. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies Appeal in the of. Might say fractured ) decision well as BCL law Notes generally which OK! - LawTeacher is douglas v hello... Interference – breach of confidence ’ by Hello! privacy-related claims, and draw out two.... And likely impact of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding a deal with OK! in an instant: use templates... Could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests in a split ( some might fractured! Photographs which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised freelance photographer gained access the. Judge ( Lindsay J ) upheld the Douglases were a celebrity wedding at which all photography. Three won their case against Hello!, Douglas v Hello!... Michael Douglas Catherine. And Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! was found to be disseminated be an of. With OK!, its Spanish mother Hola limit ourselves to the the! – damages several days later and Keene LJJ the interlocutory stage in case! Which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised freelance photographer access! Laws from around the world, the famous film stars Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones OK. Attempted to bid for the photographs you can find something useful in-house law team, tort Economic... Confidence ; the prospective Claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to disseminated... A deal with OK!, its Spanish mother Hola May 2020, at 05:15 couple who exclusive... Oxbridge Notes in-house law team, tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – breach privacy...

Landmark Trust Norfolk, Sun Life Financial Address Toronto, Purple Anodized Ar-15 Parts, Winter On Fire Reddit, Istanbul Hava Durumu Ntv, Wfmz Weather Hour By Hour, Exclusive Listings Winnipeg,