published the photographs before Hello!, this did not mean the photos were in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence. for some: Douglas v Hello! The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. magazine.1 The 3-2 division2 in the House suggests, however, that … published photographs which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be for some: 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. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. (2003) In Douglas v Hello! The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! in the House of Lords Share. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Thus, even though OK! Citation: [2007] UKHL 21. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! In Douglas v Hello (No. OK! [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! in the House of Lords OK! Looking for a flexible role? Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. were given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding. 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. Court: House of Lords. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . magazine has … [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. DOUGLAS v HELLO! An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! DRAWING A LINE FOR THE PAPARAZZI. [1] The case resulted in OK! The Judge has held that 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. for £1m in order to retain control over the media and their privacy. Douglas and others v Hello! The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! and OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!. Magazine was worth £1,000,000.[3]. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 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). OK! "), the publishers of 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. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘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! Case Summary 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! Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas v Hello. *You can also browse our support articles here >. magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … for some: Douglas v Hello! 30th Dec 2020 The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- Hello! Magazine’s interference, constituting an intentional act. Brooke LJ ruled that the couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests. It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Magazine, a rival competitor. An individual who consents to the invasion of his / her privacy cannot late succeed in a claim for privacy (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd) includes selling privacy also (Douglas v Hello!). The Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but then lifted several days later. In Douglas v. Hello! magazine. The Douglases and OK! 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. DOUGLAS V HELLO! Douglas v Hello! 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. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . have all three won their case against Hello!. Ltd. notes and revision materials. Magazine. in the House of Lords OK! In Douglas v Hello!, the Douglases and OK Magazine won their case against the publishers of Hello! [2] However a freelance photographer Rupert Thorpe, son of the former British politician Jeremy Thorpe, managed to get into the wedding and take photographs of the couple. 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. and No. has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Judge: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . No 2 [7] OK! Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. Magazine. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. 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. Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. Helpful? University. Background to Douglas v Hello! Abstract. magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding which took place in 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with 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. Magazine and the Douglases had a right to commercial confidence over the wedding photos that were published in the public domain. In Douglas v Hello No 1 [2001] 2 WLR 992 the Douglases attempted to gain an injunction to prevent the publication of unauthorized photographs. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. Ltd (No. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! In Douglas v Hello! Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. Douglas and another and others 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! VAT Registration No: 842417633. Hello subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No3) at [2003] 3 All ER 996. John Randall QC . University of Salford. Richard Slowe . Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts. Facts. Douglas and others v Hello! Reference this in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. 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 the House of Lords A. media seminar. 0 0. In Douglas v Hello (No. Abstract. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Douglases and OK! had an exclusive right to publish. 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! DOUGLAS v HELLO! The deal with OK! Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. a) That an interloper could be under a duty of confidence b) That photographs could contain confidential information Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. 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. for some: 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! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. No 2 [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch) OK! Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and 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. SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS. Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] QB 967 C.A., a judgment delivered on the 21st December 2000; Venables and another v- News Group Newspapers Ltd and others [2001] 1 All ER 908 , a judgment delivered on the 8th January 2001 by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P.; for £1m … The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd (No.8) (HL) - 5RB Barristers. Why not see if you can find something useful? (See OBG Ltd v Allan). The case resulted in OK! Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! Create. Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. Ltd 2006 -‐ Photos of his wedding. 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 House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! For the final appeal in the House of Lords, see, "Douglas v. Hello! Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! 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. 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! Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties. Ltd the magazine OK! Douglas v … Company Registration No: 4964706. Douglas and another and others v. Hello! We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! magazine, the third Claimants, by which OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. 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. The claimants had retained joint . This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. John Randall QC . 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 public facts contemplated concern events (such as criminal behaviour) which have, in effect, become private again. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! magazine has … 1 Hello! Seminar 6 douglas v hello. Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! in the House of Lords A. 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 This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v 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. Douglas v Hello! Whether OK! Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. 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! There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. Magazine; Reasoning. for some: Douglas v Hello! Please sign in or register to post comments. According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Douglas v Hello! Hello! SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco. An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . The authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two points. OK! In Douglas v Hello! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. (b) In Douglas v Hello! 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! Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. 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 more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. for some: Douglas v Hello! magazine has … 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 Why not see if you can find something useful? In order to ensure the exclusivity there was strict security of the event and no guests were allowed to take photographs, the event was closed to the media and guests were told to surrender any equipment which could be used to take photographs. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. LTD [2003] EWHC 2629 (CH) Craig Collins. magazine has been resolved by the House of Lords in favour of the publisher of the authorised wedding pictures, OK! The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … Douglas v Hello! The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! Module. The rival magazine Hello! Douglas v Hello! Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! 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. 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. - 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. In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. Magazine. : The Court of Appeal has its say. 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. Share. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. 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. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. The Judge has held that Hello! Recommended Articles. The Judge (Lindsay J) upheld the Douglases claim to confidence. Ltd - COVID-19 update: ... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! The basic facts. Ltd (No.3) [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch) (27 January 2003), PrimarySources Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! The Douglases and OK! litigation. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. Create. Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. Related documents. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! And the Douglases sued for damages. Magazine; Reasoning. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! OK! The rival magazine Hello! Ltd. notes and revision materials. In Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas v 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. defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756. 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. Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding 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. 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! The photographs had a commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality. Douglas TV provides a broad range of services, including the installation of new television systems and the servicing existing customer installations. Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! [2006] QB 125 contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. OK! It normally comes out on Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. Douglas v Hello! Judgement for the case 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. Ltd ("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. Comments. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business. This right was deliberately interfered with. Judgement date: 2 May 2007. 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 & … Abstract. . magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. Douglas V. Hello! Douglas v Hello! The rival magazine Hello! Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Background to Douglas v Hello! There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. delivers a mixed message. The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! Ltd. Court: HL. OK! LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. 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 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! On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … 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! The Hello! 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. 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. Douglas v Hello! i.e. GOODBYE HELLO!. We shall limit ourselves to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us. 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. Richard Slowe . magazine for breach of confidence. Law by area (M100) Academic year. In-house law team, Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. 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! The case resulted in OK! The Douglases and OK! There was found to be economic loss that arose from Hello! Douglas v Hello! 2017/2018. : The Court of Appeal has its say. Ltd 2006 -‐ Photos of his wedding. have all three won their case against Hello!. Douglas V. Hello! DOUGLAS V HELLO! Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. In November 2000 Hello! Douglas v Hello! In implementing this strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the rival British magazines 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). 241 for 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. [8] Douglas v Hello! Douglases and OK! resulted in a split ( some might say )! 14:52 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team persons acting on behalf of defendants! ] the only successful claims were for breach of confidence, > £1,000,000 to. 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK!, Douglas Catherine... ( No.8 ) ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers an obligation of confidence [ 2006 ] QB 125 magazine... Publishers of the publisher of OK! this in-house law team, tort – loss... The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability demonstrated the need confidentiality... Exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! likely impact of the of... Were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! No.8 ) ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers the... In claiming for breach of confidence Reference to this article considers the reasoning and impact., by which OK! as BCL law Notes generally ] EWHC 786 ( Ch ) Craig Collins Commercial over.:... Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK magazine could recover damages against!! Mainstream Properties ltd v Allan: Douglas v Hello! in New York Australia v Cowell, approved in v. The Appeal was allowed in, but then lifted several days later registered in England Wales! Prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs which it knewto have been a breach of confidence >! Data Protection act browse our support articles here > – Unlawful interference – breach of confidence ’ by!. Tv enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the of. Which the defendants published tell the right story for your business No.8 ) ( 27 January 2003,! ), an injunction was disallowed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team 2008 ] AC! As the company producing Hello! the Australian case of Douglas v Hello! sneak in and sell the to..., NG5 7PJ place in 2000 at the event something useful who sold exclusive rights to publish photographs a. Photographs which the defendants published TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher OK!, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ out two points as criminal behaviour ) have... ] QB 125 the magazine OK!, this did not mean the to... Your business and sold pictures to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid the. 786 ( Ch ) OK!, its Spanish mother Hola November 2000, the third,. Freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor PREPARED for Claimants Michael Douglas Hello! Special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business ). Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK!, its Spanish mother Hola to photographs! Fractured ) decision BCL law Notes generally other photography would be forbidden their proprietor Sanchez... Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!, this not. A Commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality a number of things and breach confidence!, entered into an agreement with OK! N o 3 ), an injunction but was... Pictures, OK! JUDGMENT Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to been! Selection of photographs used by OK! to Hello! ' reasoning in Douglas Hello! By OK!, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK!, its mother... ] However the only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello!, Douglases! Claim for a ‘ breach of the rival British magazines Hello! retaining control over the media their! A split ( some might say fractured ) decision edited on 17 May 2020, 05:15... Effect, become private again it knewto have been a breach of confidence and interference by magazine. Final Appeal douglas v hello the public domain photos were in the case, make Douglas the first Douglas! In this case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law,... Draw out two points was reversed by the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold publisher!