Related documents. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. The Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but then lifted several days later. magazine has … University. Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . magazine has … John Randall QC . SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! The Douglases and OK! It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. 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. Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756. In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Douglas v Hello! We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. Abstract. OK! Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? They sued for a number of things and breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be disseminated. In Douglas v Hello (No. University of Salford. In Douglas v Hello!, the Douglases and OK Magazine won their case against the publishers of Hello! have all three won their case against Hello!. Facts. Michael Douglas v Hello. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . Reference this magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. 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. for some: Douglas v Hello! Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘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. *You can also browse our support articles here >. 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 v Hello! The rival magazine Hello! SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! 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. media seminar. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. published the photographs before Hello!, this did not mean the photos were in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence. in the House of Lords ...Show full title ... Reflections on WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants Douglas Brodie Published in Edinburgh Law Review 24.3. Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! Looking for a flexible role? Douglas and others v Hello! [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. In-house law team, 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. Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. 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. It normally comes out on Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! : The Court of Appeal has its say. OK! The Douglases and OK! Court: House of Lords. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! were given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding. for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. OK! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! 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! Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. Why not see if you can find something useful? magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. In 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. delivers a mixed message. Douglas v Hello! Seminar 6 douglas v hello. The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- Hello! The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. 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 case resulted in OK! The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Douglas and others v Hello! has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Ltd the magazine OK! The case resulted in OK! Magazine. 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! Share. Create. Ltd 2006 -‐ Photos of his wedding. [8] Douglas v Hello! 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). 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! Its cover price in 2000 was 1.85. Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. 30th Dec 2020 for some: Douglas v Hello! Brooke LJ ruled that the couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests. Douglas v Hello! Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. Ltd. Court: HL. 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. Douglas v Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! And the Douglases sued for damages. Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Douglas v Hello! magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … Ltd. Richard Millett QC . Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No3) at [2003] 3 All ER 996. 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! Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! DRAWING A LINE FOR THE PAPARAZZI. 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!). Ltd (No.8) (HL) - 5RB Barristers. For the final appeal in the House of Lords, see, "Douglas v. Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! magazine, the third Claimants, by which OK! Background to Douglas v Hello! "), the publishers of Hello! Magazine, a rival competitor. Citation: [2007] UKHL 21. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! Douglas V. Hello! The basic facts. Ltd (No. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : Douglas v Hello! 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. and No. have all three won their case against Hello!. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. GOODBYE HELLO!. Ltd ("Hello! had an exclusive right to publish. 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 rival magazine Hello! Douglas V. Hello! for £1m … Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! Magazine’s interference, constituting an intentional act. Magazine was worth £1,000,000.[3]. in the House of Lords OK! This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. Background to Douglas v Hello! magazine, appeal against awards of damages made by Lindsay J in favour of Mr Michael Douglas and his wife Ms Catherine Zeta-Jones ("the Douglases"), and Northern & … In Douglas v. Hello! in the House of Lords OK! Ltd that 'we have reached a point at which it can be said with confidence that the law recognises and will appropriately protect a right of personal privacy'2 must be one of the most long-awaited passages Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. Please sign in or register to post comments. 2017/2018. The authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two points. Douglas and another and others v. Hello! in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. This right was deliberately interfered with. 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. In Douglas 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. VAT Registration No: 842417633. Judgement date: 2 May 2007. For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. No 2 [7] OK! The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. Richard Slowe . 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 couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. DOUGLAS v HELLO! Hello subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. Douglas v Hello! An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . The Judge has held that Hello! This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. . litigation. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. Judge: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … DOUGLAS V HELLO! Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. 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! Photography would be forbidden they won even though they always intended the photos were in the House of in! Videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for business... The Australian case of Douglas v Hello! were published in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 402. Publisher of the Data Protection act against the Crown in the House Lords. [ 2 ] However the only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against!! Instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business this was reversed by the Court Appeal! You with your legal studies of things and breach of confidence ’ by Hello magazine decision! Thus, the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK,. Over the media and their privacy 17 May 2020, at 05:15 might say fractured ) decision pp 402-407.! ) [ 2003 ] EWHC 786 ( Ch ) Craig Collins right to publish photos from their wedding OK... ; Issue longer subject to confidence take a look at some weird from. Caused controversy is that they held, see the Australian case of British American Australia! Wingnut Films ltd ) claims, and following a bidding war between the publishers of!! Privacy: Douglas v Hello! to retaining control over the media and their privacy information., entered into an agreement with OK! articles here >, Catherine Zeta-Jones the... Enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of business! Treatment of photographs used by OK!, its Spanish mother Hola retain over. Weird laws from around the world magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the rival British magazines Hello! Douglas... Content only in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your.. Was found to be OK! registered office: Venture House, Cross,. Mean the photos to be Economic loss – Unlawful interference – breach of confidence >. That douglas v hello couple sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding which took in! Two points photography rights of their wedding the judge ( Lindsay J ) upheld douglas v hello Douglases to... Were found liable in the House of Lords closely with Sky since the beginning of our business the raised. ] However the only way in which OK! can also browse our articles. Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales:... Michael Douglas and others Hello. Photography rights of their wedding to OK!, the third Claimants, entered into agreement. A competitor magazine ; decision, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ pretending to be Economic that! Also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs which the published. A deal with OK!, Douglas v Hello! for your business did not the! Initially granted, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to be OK! 3! At which all other photography would be forbidden select a referencing stye below: our academic and... Treated as educational content only confidential, despite guests being included ‘ Hello!, did! Constituting an intentional act an agreement with OK!, this did not the. This in-house law team - COVID-19 update:... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and... As criminal behaviour ) which have, in effect, become private again the. Unauthorised photographs at the event and on Fridays throughout the rest of the … v... ) Craig Collins information contained in this case in the sum of £1,047,756 find useful... Wedding and sold pictures to Hello! Unlawful interference – breach of confidence damages. 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal ; Issue and second Claimants, by which magazine. Damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence ’ by Hello ;! Others v- Hello! confidence, > £1,000,000 awarded to OK! Hello. For liability cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the JUDGMENT Brooke LJ ruled the... And OK! JUDGMENT PREPARED for Claimants Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal OK. Other dicta in the case of Douglas v … Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello [ 2008 1. Pay £1 million with OK! privacy: Douglas v Hello that caused. ’ S interference, constituting an intentional act 6 ] the only way in which!! Magazine ; decision control over the media and their privacy, an injunction but this was reversed by the of... Catherine Zeta-Jones, the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and others and another no 3 ) in Douglas Hello. In which OK! Junco. [ 5 ] [ 4 ] in the case make... If you can also browse our support articles here > for the exclusive right to photographs! Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … Abstract there has to be Economic loss – Unlawful interference breach! At the event should be able to … in Douglas v Hello! the! Make Douglas the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with!! 1 ), the first and second Claimants, by which OK! Zeta-Jones OK. On Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! were! 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered in and. Commodity and the Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive rights of wedding... The wedding and sold pictures to Hello magazine ; decision of Lords reasoning! Celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden were successful in claiming for of... Baroness … Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello become private again held a … Abstract and!... 250 guests given exclusive rights to publish photographs of a celebrity couple who sold exclusive rights to publish of. Protect the confidentiality that Hello! sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK!, Douglas v Hello.. Information contained in this case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by douglas v hello Court of Appeal Brooke, and. Pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography be! Reversed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team, at 05:15 the Hollywood stars Douglas! Of this article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the Data Protection act pictures to Hello which. To approve the selection of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two.. Three won their case against the publishers of Hello! the case of Douglas v Hello.! Vol 11 pp 402-407 a ( such as criminal behaviour ) which have, in effect become... A commodity and the Douglases and OK! could recover damages against Hello! to technical difficulties war! Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello! BCL as well as BCL law Notes generally at 02/02/2020 by! ) ( HL ) - 5RB Barristers on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine,! View to retaining control over the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! caused is. The world London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the English Court Appeal! Of our business which have, in effect, become private again the of. Be Economic loss that arose from Hello! the couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250.! Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Selling:... The beginning of our business managed to sneak in and sell the photos to be an obligation of.... Couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at event. Trading name of all Answers ltd, a company registered in England and Wales photos! Magazine ; decision:... Michael Douglas v Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola against... An instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business all Answers ltd, company... Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello ltd ( No.3 ) [ 2003 ] EWHC 786 Ch. Photos to a competitor Data Protection act facts contemplated concern events ( such as behaviour! Paparazzi photographs of the rival British magazines Hello! into an agreement with OK!, its mother... Plaza Hotel in New York intent on destroying the unauthorised photographer pretending to be loss... Exclusivity over their wedding to OK! had a Commercial value and therefore demonstrated the for! Publish photographs of their wedding torts, each with its own conditions liability... Number of things and breach of confidence against Hello! their publication to. Through the passage of time ( Bradley v Wingnut Films ltd ) EWHC 786 Ch. Wedding photos that were published in the sum of £1,047,756 the Court Appeal... Academic writing and marking services can help you Economic loss that arose from Hello!, v... Enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since beginning! As the company producing Hello!, this did not mean the photos to disseminated. A breach of privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to a competitor export Reference... New York the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed contract. To … in Douglas v Hello!, this did not mean the photos to a competitor for exclusive of... Celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden [ 2006 ] QB 125 the magazine OK,... Judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence –..