douglas v hello

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

The National - Fremantle Arts Centre, Mayo, Ireland Weather, Does Uncg Have A Football Team, Zach Triner Number, Weather In Moscow, Idaho, Cameron White Srh, Midland, Mi Weather, Mayo, Ireland Weather,