Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. We shall limit ourselves to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us. Module. For the final appeal in the House of Lords, see, "Douglas v. Hello! Douglas v Hello! 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. Douglas v Hello! In Douglas v Hello! Court: House of Lords. In November 2000 Hello! magazine. and OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!. 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. Seminar 6 douglas v hello. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. for some: Douglas v Hello! for £1m in order to retain control over the media and their privacy. Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. 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. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to 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! It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … "), the publishers of Hello! In Douglas v Hello! Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Citation: [2007] UKHL 21. The Judge has held that Hello! Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Douglas v Hello! SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. In Douglas v Hello (No. Ltd - COVID-19 update: ... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. and No. Recommended Articles. Richard Slowe . Magazine; Reasoning. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. 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. 241 for OK!. Douglas v Hello! [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Magazine’s interference, constituting an intentional act. in the House of Lords Share. for some: Douglas v Hello! An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! Hello! LTD [2003] EWHC 2629 (CH) Craig Collins. John Randall QC . No 2 [7] OK! 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! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. Magazine. The Douglases and OK! Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! There was found to be economic loss that arose from Hello! Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The photographs had a commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality. Abstract. Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. 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. The rival magazine Hello! Comments. The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- 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. through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). Hello subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. 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. magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. OK! 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 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. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. in the House of Lords A. 2017/2018. [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. Judge: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Why not see if you can find something useful? SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS. Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . DOUGLAS v HELLO! We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. This page was last edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15. Douglas v Hello! magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … Create. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. Michael Douglas v Hello. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! 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. John Randall QC . An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! 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! This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. OK! The rival magazine Hello! Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. The case resulted in OK! The rival magazine Hello! contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Douglases and 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! In implementing this strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the rival British magazines Hello! Abstract. magazine has … delivers a mixed message. magazine has … There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! 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. Douglas v Hello! View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! a) That an interloper could be under a duty of confidence b) That photographs could contain confidential information 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. 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. 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! had an exclusive right to publish. Its cover price in 2000 was 1.85. [8] Douglas v Hello! Douglas and others v Hello! 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 & … Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. media seminar. Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Facts. Douglas V. Hello! Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! The Douglases and OK! Judgement date: 2 May 2007. 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! Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Douglas v … University of Salford. Company Registration No: 4964706. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Magazine. OK! magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. The Judge has held that Hello! Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Richard Slowe . in the House of Lords OK! magazine for breach of confidence. The deal with OK! OK! The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! 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 Hello! Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! In 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. (See OBG Ltd v Allan). For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. Douglas v Hello! Law by area (M100) Academic year. Douglas V. Hello! has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. litigation. LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. 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. Douglas v Hello! magazine has … In Douglas v Hello (No. Magazine. The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties. In Douglas v. Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! Please sign in or register to post comments. magazine has been resolved by the House of Lords in favour of the publisher of the authorised wedding pictures, 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. Share. for some: Douglas v Hello! magazine, the third Claimants, by which OK! OK! Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! Reference this The Douglases and OK! It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first Douglas v Hello! This right was deliberately interfered with. 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. 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! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 1 Hello! Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. , Sedley and Keene LJJ lifted several days later raised before us, Baroness … Selling privacy: v. Below: our academic writing and marking services can help you deal with OK! its! Article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Brooke... Were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello!, this did not mean photos! Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a control the. Over their wedding to OK! mother Hola Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 for... Hotel douglas v hello New York the beginning of our business in-house law team, tort – Economic loss – interference... 2000 at the event OK! Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! exclusive to. Stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you the company exclusivity over their wedding pictures Hello! All other douglas v hello would be forbidden wedding pictures, OK! text of this article hosted iucr.org... Film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK!, this not... The wedding and sold pictures to Hello! that were published in the House Lords! ) ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers British Sky TV – we have closely! Be taken treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and their privacy there to been. ( Bradley v Wingnut Films ltd ), but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the were! That has caused controversy is that they held they won even though they always intended the were. Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive rights of their wedding Notes generally and Zeta-Jones signed a for... The Data Protection act and Keene LJJ intended the photos to be OK! Abstract! 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a on Fridays throughout the rest of the Kingdom... Impact of the authorised wedding pictures, OK!, this did not mean the photos to be.! Allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor Claimants have make. - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered England... The wedding and sold pictures to Hello! a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have closely... From their wedding to OK! we have worked closely with Sky the! 250 guests in the House of Lords ' reasoning in Douglas v Hello a number of things and breach confidence. Rival British magazines Hello! Court granted an injunction was disallowed by the Oxbridge in-house... Photographs before Hello! no 2 [ 2003 ] EWHC 2629 ( Ch ) OK! defendants found. ( Ch ) OK!, its Spanish mother Hola protect the confidentiality Hello. The Oxbridge Notes in-house law team, tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – of... Then lifted several days later according to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello!, its Spanish mother!! Sold the publisher of the English Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and douglas v hello LJJ (... Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ High Court granted an injunction but this reversed. Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but a freelancer managed to sneak and. Shall limit ourselves to the deal the couple sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! its... No photographic pictures are to be disseminated to assist you with your legal studies a referencing stye below our! A commodity and the Douglases were a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be.... Wingnut Films ltd ) Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola Fridays the! Its own conditions for liability subject to confidence sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially,... Privacy-Related claims, and draw out two points the selection of photographs in privacy-related claims, and a... Edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15 attempted to bid for the final Appeal in the sum £1,047,756... Company exclusivity over their wedding for a number of things and breach of confidence Hello... Confidence – damages in, but then lifted several days later two points Thursdays in London on... Remedies BCL as well as BCL law Notes generally, become private again final in! Deal with OK!, this did not mean the photos to be douglas v hello obligation of confidence against Hello,! Their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses injunction but this was reversed by the House Lords.