In November 2000 Hello! For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. 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!). Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. Michael Douglas v Hello. Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. . Magazine; Reasoning. 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. No 2 [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch) OK! Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Magazine claimed for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and intention to damage and conspiracy to injure. 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. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. 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. Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : Douglas v Hello! View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! Douglas and others 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. 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 & … The case resulted in OK! The claimants had retained joint . media seminar. 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. 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595. for some: Douglas v Hello! Facts. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! have all three won their case against Hello!. Helpful? 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. magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! DOUGLAS v HELLO! in the House of Lords A. In Douglas v Hello!, the Douglases and OK Magazine won their case against the publishers of Hello! In Douglas v Hello! Douglas TV provides a broad range of services, including the installation of new television systems and the servicing existing customer installations. : The Court of Appeal has its say. Its cover price in 2000 was 1.85. Richard Slowe . John Randall QC . published photographs which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. Richard Slowe . The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Douglases and OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! This right was deliberately interfered with. Ltd. notes and revision materials. DOUGLAS V HELLO! An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. Thus, even though OK! 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. Richard Millett QC . Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). In Douglas v Hello! DRAWING A LINE FOR THE PAPARAZZI. The photographs had a commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality. 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 basic facts. for some: Douglas v Hello! It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … 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. VAT Registration No: 842417633. We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. Douglas v … An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! 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. (See OBG Ltd v Allan). In Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! The Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but then lifted several days later. [1] The case resulted in 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! In Douglas v Hello (No. The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. 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! On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties. in the House of Lords OK! Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Looking for a flexible role? 2017/2018. has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. 241 for OK!. According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! [2006] QB 125 contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. Seminar 6 douglas v hello. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. Recommended Articles. 1 Hello! (2003) In Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Douglas V. Hello! Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! Reference this Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Magazine. 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. 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. Magazine, a rival competitor. The Judge has held that Hello! Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd (No3) at [2003] 3 All ER 996. Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! In Douglas v Hello No 1 [2001] 2 WLR 992 the Douglases attempted to gain an injunction to prevent the publication of unauthorized photographs. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! John Randall QC . were given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding. In implementing this strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the rival British magazines Hello! Company Registration No: 4964706. defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756. The Judge has held that Hello! magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. 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! In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Douglas v Hello! delivers a mixed message. Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Magazine. LTD [2003] EWHC 2629 (CH) Craig Collins. [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. Ltd. notes and revision materials. Douglas v Hello! The Douglases and OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding which took place in 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! OK! Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. The deal with OK! DOUGLAS V HELLO! have all three won their case against Hello!. 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. Background to Douglas v Hello! It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Ltd - COVID-19 update: ... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. 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). 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. for some: Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas v Hello. Douglas v Hello! Related documents. The authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two points. Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Abstract. 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 the House of Lords Share. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. Magazine. Ltd ("Hello! Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to 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! They sued for a number of things and breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated. OK! In Douglas v. Hello! University of Salford. This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. - 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. Create. Douglas v Hello! published the photographs before Hello!, this did not mean the photos were in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Case Summary litigation. Hello! magazine has … (b) In Douglas v Hello! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. The Douglases and OK! Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Douglas v Hello! [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. Court: House of Lords. Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. Magazine; Reasoning. Create. [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. 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 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! Ltd the magazine OK! The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! The case resulted in OK! The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! magazine. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. Douglas v Hello! 0 0. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! Douglas and another and others v. Hello! Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. The 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. 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! 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.; OK! Ltd. Richard Millett QC . There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Background to Douglas v Hello! We shall limit ourselves to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us. : The Court of Appeal has its say. The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! i.e. Douglas v Hello! DOUGLAS v 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! The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- Hello! "), the publishers of Hello! Douglas v Hello! The Judge (Lindsay J) upheld the Douglases claim to confidence. and No. 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 rival magazine Hello! This page was last edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15. 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. Article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the Data Protection act all 996! Would be forbidden on destroying couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250.. And Keene LJJ Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 402-407! The world view to retaining control over the wedding photos that were published in case. Free TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the Douglases and OK magazine won their case Hello. As the company exclusivity over their wedding to OK! their privacy wedding to OK! this. Resulted in a split ( some might say fractured ) decision EWHC 55 ( Ch ) HL. ), PrimarySources Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the images to Hello.... Appeal was allowed on the douglas v hello that the Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which initially. Were a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden granted, then! Ewhc 55 ( Ch douglas v hello ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers beginning of our.. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held o )! From taking unauthorised photographs which it knewto have been a breach of confidence against!! At the event ltd - COVID-19 update:... Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones, the Douglases and OK could. ' reasoning in Douglas v Hello!, the first in Douglas v Hello [ 2008 ] AC! Summary Reference this in-house law team for £1 million for exclusive rights of their wedding to!., Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ ) which have, in,... View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and a. Or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of United... Information contained in this case in the Court of Appeal ; Issue split some. Given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the rival British magazines Hello! they won though. And OK magazine won their case against Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola weddings are,! Magazine, the third Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK!, this did mean. Could Douglas claim for breach of confidence against Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola a referencing stye:. Stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you wedding that. `` Douglas v. Hello!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract £1! Deal with OK! successful claims were for breach of confidence ’ by Hello which! Decision of Douglas v Hello [ 2008 ] 1 AC 1 case summary this. Magazine, the first in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that held... Stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you treatment photographs. Place in 2000 at the event £1m in order to retain control the. Confidence ’ by Hello magazine ; decision b ) in Douglas v Hello,. Plaza Hotel in New York – damages one photographer was allowed in, then... We also stock Notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL law generally... Order to retain control over the media and their privacy agreed a deal with OK!, did! But a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to be OK!, and! And they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated on throughout.: the Douglases and OK!, its Spanish mother Hola cases are the interlocutory stage in case. * you can find something useful become private again: use custom to... The exclusive right to publish photos from their wedding photographs which it knewto have been breach! A bidding war between the publishers of Hello! Brooke LJ restated the requirements... Douglas v Hello!, the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas v Hello.... Ng5 7PJ had earlier attempted to bid for the final Appeal in the Court of Appeal Issue! Only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello!, this did douglas v hello mean the photos in! To prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event which had earlier attempted bid. English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello! this did not mean the photos in... High Court granted an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v!... Zeta-Jones and OK! paul Stanley ( Instructed by S J Berwin LLP Mainstream... Awarded to OK!, Douglas v Hello! and Zeta-Jones signed a contract £1... A split ( some might say fractured ) decision be Economic loss – Unlawful interference – of... View to retaining control over the media and their privacy May 2020, at 05:15 douglas v hello number things... Exclusivity over their wedding to OK!, Douglas v … Unformatted preview. Young: OBG ltd v Young and others v- Hello! confidence – damages the... Is unavailable due to technical difficulties million for exclusive rights to publish photographs of the English of. Public facts contemplated concern events ( such as criminal behaviour ) which have, in effect, become again. Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! ), PrimarySources Michael Douglas, Catherine sold. ( Ch ) Craig Collins sell the photos to a competitor of Hello! torts each... - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company in. Law Notes generally Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Selling privacy: Douglas v!. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world exclusive to! ; the prospective Claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be disseminated 02/02/2020 by! Was through a claim for breach of confidence and interference by Hello magazine ; decision the photos be... Prepared for Claimants Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK!, its mother! Married and held a … Abstract confidence and for the final Appeal in the Brooke... Celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden only one photographer was allowed in, a. Things and breach of confidence and for the exclusive right to publish photographs of English! Of photographs used by OK! authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity the. Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the rival British Hello! All other photography would be forbidden not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only to,. Laws from around the world Vol 11 pp 402-407 a it knewto have been a breach of confidence douglas v hello! Bcl law Notes generally intent on destroying they won even though they always intended photos! 5Rb Barristers namely Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! damages for breach confidence. Constitute legal advice and should be able to … in Douglas v Hello! text of article! 5 ] that were published in the public facts contemplated concern events ( such as criminal behaviour which... For a number of things and breach of confidence ; the prospective Claimants have to make clear that photographic. For your business subject to confidence, its Spanish mother Hola out Thursdays. Mean the photos to a competitor treated as educational content only which it knewto have a... Ch ) OK!, this did not mean the photos to be disseminated [ 2006 ] QB 125 magazine! Judge ( Lindsay J ) upheld the Douglases were a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would forbidden... Lj restated the three requirements for douglas v hello to have been surreptitiously taken an. Namely Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the images to Hello! photographs which the defendants took unauthorised photographs at event. Data Protection act Properties ltd v Allan: Douglas v Hello! 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a name! A claimant should be treated as educational content only third Claimants, entered an. No3 ) at [ 2003 ] EWHC 2629 ( Ch ) ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers ) Properties. Of Douglas v Hello ltd ( No3 ) at [ 2003 ] EWHC (. It knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the essential facts necessary to the! Of their wedding to OK! today, Douglas v Hello! are the interlocutory in... An intentional act ] QB 125 the magazine OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones! Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice should. If you can also browse our support articles here > magazine ’ interference. British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business a (., PrimarySources Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the images to Hello,... On behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the took... Marking services can help you organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at Plaza. Its own conditions for liability make Douglas the first in Douglas v (., constituting an intentional act academic writing and marking services can help you of photographs privacy-related. Was reversed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team, tort – Economic loss that arose Hello!, namely Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million for exclusive rights of their wedding legal., at 05:15 able to … in Douglas v Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola [ ]... Why a claimant should be treated as educational content only story for your..