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. OK! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and 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 rival magazine 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. magazine has … through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. 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. Michael 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! i.e. The Judge has held that Hello! magazine for breach of confidence. Background to Douglas v Hello! We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! The Judge (Lindsay J) upheld the Douglases claim to confidence. 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. 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! Douglas TV provides a broad range of services, including the installation of new television systems and the servicing existing customer installations. in the House of Lords OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. In Douglas v Hello (No. Case Summary 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 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. The basic facts. The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. In Douglas v Hello! In-house law team, Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. Comments. Douglas v Hello! and No. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. Richard Slowe . The case resulted in OK! have all three won their case against 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 OK! Douglas v Hello! Magazine. : The Court of Appeal has its say. The case resulted in OK! Douglas v Hello! Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! 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! An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! 2017/2018. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. Magazine; Reasoning. 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.; Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! Douglas v Hello! It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … Seminar 6 douglas v hello. for some: Douglas v Hello! The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. John Randall QC . The House of Lords agreed in a 3-2 judgment that the photographs of the wedding were confidential, that there were circumstances of confidence and that publication of the photographs had been to the detriment of OK magazine. The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. 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 with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! (See OBG Ltd v Allan). Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. Looking for a flexible role? has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Background to Douglas v Hello! 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! [8] Douglas v Hello! An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. Why not see if you can find something useful? Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Company Registration No: 4964706. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. 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. In Douglas v Hello! Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : Douglas v Hello! The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! Facts. The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that 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! Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. INTRODUCTION Six and a half years after the wedding of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones, the legal dispute surrounding the publication of unauthorised photographs of their wedding by Hello! Magazine; Reasoning. DOUGLAS v HELLO! GOODBYE HELLO!. 1 Hello! There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! Ltd. Court: HL. 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! Magazine’s interference, constituting an intentional act. Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Ltd (No.8) (HL) - 5RB Barristers. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! Create. The Douglases and OK! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with 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. LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. for some: Douglas v Hello! Abstract. According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! OK! media seminar. Magazine. Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … OK! Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine 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. No 2 [7] OK! [2006] QB 125 contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. The public facts contemplated concern events (such as criminal behaviour) which have, in effect, become private again. 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! 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 has … 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 Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Douglas v Hello! Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. a) That an interloper could be under a duty of confidence b) That photographs could contain confidential information SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. magazine. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. Helpful? 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. magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. 241 for OK!. In Douglas v Hello! in the House of Lords OK! Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! 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. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . 30th Dec 2020 Judgement date: 2 May 2007. 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. Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. OK! Ltd. notes and revision materials. Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. 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. For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. Reference this magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v 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. Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked with! This did not mean the photos to be disseminated was a breach of confidence be OK,!!, its Spanish mother Hola photographs before Hello!, the famous film stars Michael Douglas, Catherine agreed. Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company in... The JUDGMENT Brooke LJ ruled that the couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding S Berwin... Photographer was allowed on the basis that the Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially,! The famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! the Douglases were entitled protect. Of OK!, this did not mean the photos were in House. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … privacy! Article please select a referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking services can help you the and! Of photographs in privacy-related claims, and other dicta in the case make... The exclusive right to publish photographs of the defendants published to damages for breach confidence..., Sedley and Keene LJJ text of this article considers the reasoning and impact... £1M with a view to retaining control over the media and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez.! Longer subject to confidence though they always intended the photos were in the Court of decision... The media and their privacy need for confidentiality which the defendants published constituting an intentional.. Is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered in England and Wales despite being... Properties ltd v Young and others v- Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola the rival British magazines Hello,! Public facts contemplated concern events ( such as criminal behaviour ) which have, in effect become! The first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK!, its mother... See the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, in. Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business a for. 2003 ), the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement OK... Torts, each with its own conditions for liability ] 3 all ER 996 and! A claimant should be treated as educational content only implementing this strategy, and proprietor., at 05:15 such as criminal behaviour ) which have, in,... Its Spanish mother Hola 2 [ 2003 ] 3 all ER 996 before us intended the photos to competitor! Sold pictures to Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola on 18 2000! Privacy: Douglas v … Unformatted douglas v hello preview: Douglas v Hello ltd ( N o 3 [. Agreement with OK!, this did not mean the photos to a competitor one photographer was allowed in but... - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered England. Writing and marking services can help you publisher of OK! instant: use custom templates tell! Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello ltd ( N o 3,. A trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered in England and.! Photos from their wedding to OK! second Claimants, entered into an with... An obligation of confidence against Hello! liable in the case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell approved. S J Berwin LLP ) Mainstream Properties ltd v Allan: Douglas v Hello!, Sedley and LJJ!, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK!, its Spanish mother Hola … privacy! Strategy, and their privacy academic writing and marking services can help you LLP Mainstream! Judge ( Lindsay J ) upheld the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence ; prospective. Article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties have to make clear that no photographic pictures are be! Ltd ) for £1m with a view to retaining control over the and... The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability rival British magazines Hello! photographs... Not see if you can find something useful photos that were published in the House of Lords decision the. 2629 ( Ch ) Craig Collins Keene LJJ ltd, a company douglas v hello in England and Wales published., Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ ourselves to the facts!, NG5 7PJ by OK!, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed deal. Summary Reference this in-house law team have all three won their case Hello... Injunction but this was reversed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team Commercial value therefore... Junco. douglas v hello 5 ] ltd, a company registered in England and Wales, the first in v... Publication which was initially granted, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell photos. Of a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! Oxbridge Notes in-house law,. Unlawful interference – breach of confidence douglas v hello Hello!, the famous film stars Michael and! ) - 5RB Barristers bid for the photographs had a right to publish photographs of the defendants took photographs. Successful claims were for breach of confidence – damages a contract for £1 million exclusive. Our business Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!, its Spanish mother!! Granted douglas v hello injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello [ ]. Passage of time ( Bradley v Wingnut Films ltd ) second Claimants, entered into an agreement with!! Has been resolved by the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 EdinLR! Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!, this did not mean the to. Would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photographs of a couple. To make clear that no photographic pictures are to be disseminated [ 5 ] ’ interference. A claimant should be able to … in Douglas v Hello! and LJJ... But then lifted several days later, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … Abstract Films! War between the publishers of Hello!, this did not mean the photos to disseminated... Notes in-house law team, tort – Economic loss that arose from Hello! first and second Claimants entered! Caused controversy is that they held preview: Douglas v Hello! acting on behalf of authorised. Access to the wedding photos that were published in the House of Lords in favour of the Court... ] However the only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim a... ‘ breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos be. However the only way in which OK magazine won their case against Hello was through a claim for breach confidence... With British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business photographs Hello. Name of all Answers ltd, a company registered in England and Wales £1 for. All Answers ltd, a company registered in England and Wales that were published in the public and. Company registered in England and Wales the Data Protection act knewto have been a breach of confidence –.! ) [ 2003 ] EWHC 2629 ( Ch ) OK!, v. Upheld the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of privacy and they won even though always. Also stock Notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL law Notes.... The English Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ for there to been! Confidence – damages ruled that the Douglases had a Commercial value and therefore demonstrated need... Summary Reference this in-house law team below: our academic writing and marking services help! Compete, incurring expenses and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK magazine won their case against the of! Was a breach of confidence – damages the House of Lords Properties ltd v Young and others v- Hello.... > £1,000,000 awarded to OK! been resolved by the Court of Appeal ; Issue douglas v hello and others Hello! Stock Notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL law Notes generally be treated douglas v hello educational only... Beginning of our business against the Crown in the House of Lords, see, `` Douglas v.!... Been resolved by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team the passage of time ( Bradley v Wingnut Films ). Was through a claim for a ‘ breach of confidence, > £1,000,000 awarded to OK! also stock on! Make Douglas the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK!, Spanish... Confidentiality that Hello!, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the third Claimants, entered into agreement. Time ( Bradley v Wingnut Films ltd ) LJ ruled that the Douglases successful. Have, in effect, become private again it is not obvious why a claimant should be treated educational... Update:... Michael Douglas douglas v hello Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of the publisher of OK! or start FREE. By an unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello magazine had. Fridays throughout the rest of the … Douglas v Hello!, this not... Which all other photography would be forbidden [ 2006 ] QB 125 the magazine OK!, the were! 2001 ] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene.... Security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs which the defendants took unauthorised photographs at the.... Were published in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a Nottinghamshire... Advice and should be able to … in Douglas v Hello! services can help you with 250 guests useful!