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

Solarwinds Api Powershell, Belgium First Division B, Dora Skirth Death, Modric Fifa 21 Review, Lingard Fifa 21 Card, Dublin To Isle Of Man Flights, Manning The Table Meaning,