The authors explore ideas about the celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, and draw out two points. The case resulted in OK! It is not obvious why a claimant should be able to … Case Summary In Douglas v Hello No 1 [2001] 2 WLR 992 the Douglases attempted to gain an injunction to prevent the publication of unauthorized photographs. Douglas & Ors v Hello Ltd. & Ors. magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. The Judge has held that Hello! The rival magazine Hello! Douglas v Hello! The Douglases and 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. University. 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! Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. Douglas v … Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! 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. An aspect of the House of Lords' reasoning in Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held . 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 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. The claimants had retained joint . Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! In Douglas v Hello! Douglas v Hello! magazine for breach of confidence. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! GOODBYE HELLO!. Comments. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. have all three won their case against Hello!. Hello! Why not see if you can find something useful? Magazine claimed for breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and intention to damage and conspiracy to injure. magazine. Ltd (No.8) (HL) - 5RB Barristers. Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! 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 … 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! (See OBG Ltd v Allan). Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? OK! Douglas v Hello! magazine published six paparazzi photographs of the … 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. University of Salford. a) That an interloper could be under a duty of confidence b) That photographs could contain confidential information (b) In Douglas v Hello! In November 2000 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 Create. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! OK! DOUGLAS v HELLO! i.e. Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. 30th Dec 2020 Abstract. 3) [2005] EWCA Civ 595. SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Douglas v Hello! Remedies against the Crown in the House of Lords. John Randall QC . delivers a mixed message. Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595 was a series of cases in which Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones challenged unauthorised photos of their wedding in the English courts. Magazine’s interference, constituting an intentional act. 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. Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. Ltd (No3) at [2003] 3 All ER 996. 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. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, 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. Douglas and others v Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! DOUGLAS v HELLO! for £1m in order to retain control over the media and their privacy. 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. Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. 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. . Whether OK! defendants were found liable in the sum of £1,047,756. contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. The rival magazine Hello! OK! On 18 November 2000, the famous film stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a … 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. 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. Abstract. The basic facts. magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! For the final appeal in the House of Lords, see, "Douglas v. 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. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. The first concerns legal awareness of what could be called the celebrity industry and its role in … Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ . through the passage of time (Bradley v Wingnut Films Ltd). Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In 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! had an exclusive right to publish. magazine has … Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Hello subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal. Magazine. published photographs which it knewto have been surreptitiously taken by an unauthorised photographer pretending to be 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. for some: Douglas v 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. In-house law team, Tort – Economic loss – Unlawful interference – Breach of Confidence – damages. [4] In the judgment Brooke LJ restated the three requirements for there to have been a breach of confidence. In implementing this strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the rival British magazines 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. Its cover price in 2000 was 1.85. Douglas v Hello! Create. Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! 2017/2018. An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! The public facts contemplated concern events (such as criminal behaviour) which have, in effect, become private again. Magazine and the Douglases had a right to commercial confidence over the wedding photos that were published in the public domain. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. magazine.1 The 3-2 division2 in the House suggests, however, that … OK! DRAWING A LINE FOR THE PAPARAZZI. Recommended Articles. The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd. as the company producing Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola! : The Court of Appeal has its say. 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. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. 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. 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! [6] The only way in which OK magazine could recover damages against Hello was through a claim for breach of confidence. magazine which would give the company exclusivity over their wedding which took place in 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York. 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! This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. for some: Douglas v Hello! And the Douglases sued for damages. Law by area (M100) Academic year. 0 0. There has to be an obligation of confidence; The prospective claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be taken. Magazine; Reasoning. 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. Magazine brought their publication forward to compete, incurring expenses. DOUGLAS V HELLO! The appeal was allowed on the basis that the Douglases and OK! Douglas v Hello! Ltd. Court: HL. OK! Seminar 6 douglas v hello. Related documents. Citation: [2007] UKHL 21. in the House of Lords OK! It normally comes out on Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. 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!). Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas v Hello. Brooke LJ ruled that the couple could not expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests. Make social videos in an instant: use custom templates to tell the right story for your business. In Douglas v Hello! 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. Ltd. Richard Millett QC . The Judge has held that Hello! for some: Douglas v Hello! 1), an injunction was disallowed by the Court of Appeal; Issue. for £1m with a view to retaining control over the media and their privacy. Douglas and others v Hello! Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. In Douglas v Hello (No. 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). Thus, even though OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! The Judge (Lindsay J) upheld the Douglases claim to confidence. The deal with OK! The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. [1] The case resulted in OK! and OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with OK!. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. Douglas v Hello! The High Court granted an injunction but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability. media seminar. 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. Douglas v Hello! Module. Judgement for the case Douglas v Hello. This photographer then sold the images to Hello magazine which had earlier attempted to bid for the photographs. (2003) In Douglas v Hello! [2] However the only successful claims were for breach of confidence and for the breach of the Data Protection Act. Paul Stanley (Instructed by S J Berwin LLP) Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young and others and another. Douglas TV provides a broad range of services, including the installation of new television systems and the servicing existing customer installations. published the photographs before Hello!, this did not mean the photos were in the public domain and no longer subject to confidence. The Douglases were entitled to protect the confidentiality that Hello! Why not see if you can find something useful? [8] 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. This article considers the reasoning and likely impact of the English Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello!. Magazine and the unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying. Douglas and another and others v. Hello! Magazine. According to the deal the couple were to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! The Hello! for some: 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). Unformatted text preview: Douglas v Hello! The article examines Court’s approach both to the horizontal effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the development of the new privacy action. 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. Magazine being awarded £1,033,156. [2006] QB 125 contracted for the exclusive right to publish photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden. Ltd [2006] QB 125 the magazine OK! The cases are the interlocutory stage in this case in the Court of Appeal, namely Douglas and others v- Hello! 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 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 the House of Lords A. Background to Douglas 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! Looking for a flexible role? were given exclusive rights to publish photographs of the Douglas-Zeta-Jones wedding. LTD (NO 3) [2003] 3 ALL ER 996. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only. There was found to be economic loss that arose from Hello! magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. The Douglases and OK! This right was deliberately interfered with. 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 couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Ltd. Richard Millett QC . This page was last edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15. Douglas v Hello! Share. Richard Slowe . The couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK! Ltd ("Hello! In Douglas v Hello!, the Douglases and OK Magazine won their case against the publishers of Hello! Only one photographer was allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell the photos to a competitor. The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! Michael Douglas v Hello. Magazine, a rival competitor. magazine has been resolved by the House of Lords in favour of the publisher of the authorised wedding pictures, OK! has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. Ltd 2006 -­‐ Photos of his wedding. Appeal from – Douglas and others v Hello! Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones and OK! Abstract. It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first OK! Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! magazine, the third Claimants, by which OK! The Douglases sought an interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but then lifted several days later. Ltd (No.3) [2003] EWHC 55 (Ch) (27 January 2003), PrimarySources Court: House of Lords. Ltd the 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. in the House of Lords 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 "), the publishers of Hello! In Douglas v Hello (No. Weddings are confidential, despite guests being included ‘Hello! 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! The case resulted in OK! Copyright © 2003 - 2021 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. The couple also undertook to organize security to prevent anyone from taking unauthorised photographs at the event. We also stock notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL Law Notes generally. Please sign in or register to post comments. Selling privacy: Douglas v Hello! Helpful? Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young : OBG Ltd v Allan : Douglas v Hello! The photographs had a commercial value and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality. VAT Registration No: 842417633. OK! Company Registration No: 4964706. Magazine and the Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence against Hello! The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties. Thus, the Douglases were entitled to damages for breach of confidence and interference by Hello! Reference this 1 Hello! In the aftermath of Douglas v. Hello! Douglas v Hello! magazine has … John Randall QC . SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT PREPARED FOR CLAIMANTS. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. DOUGLAS V HELLO! Douglas and others v Hello! magazine the exclusive right to publish photographs of their wedding. Could Douglas claim for a ‘breach of confidence’ by Hello magazine; Decision. Douglas V. Hello! and No. Facts. 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 & … Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business. in the House of Lords A. SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco. Douglas V. Hello! Ltd. notes and revision materials. : The Court of Appeal has its say. in the House of Lords Share. in the House of Lords Black, Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 A. The Douglases and OK! It is a more-recently-established magazine than Hello!, that being broadly reflected in the issue numbers at the time of the Douglas wedding, namely number 639 for Hello! Ltd (N o 3), the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK! for some: Douglas v Hello! 241 for OK!. Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones agreed a deal with OK! Magazine was worth £1,000,000.[3]. No 2 [7] OK! Douglas and another and others v. Hello! Douglas v Hello! magazine has … Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. Magazine; Reasoning. Facts: The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! Ltd - COVID-19 update: ... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the first and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! We also specialise in tv wall mounting installations. No 2 [2003] EWHC 786 (Ch) OK! The statement in Douglas and others v Hello! In Douglas v. Hello! Richard Slowe . 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! litigation. 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! To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Persons acting on behalf of the defendants took unauthorised photographs which the defendants published. For more on this, see the Australian case of British American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v Hello!. 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. 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! Ltd. notes and revision materials. The House of Lords decision in the case of Douglas v Hello! 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. Submitted for Dan So by Team 5. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! Registered Data Controller No: Z1821391. Ltd (No. Background to Douglas v Hello! An unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding and sold pictures to Hello! LTD [2003] EWHC 2629 (CH) Craig Collins. Judge: Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness … Douglas v Hello Ltd (N o 3) In Douglas v Hello! We shall limit ourselves to the essential facts necessary to determine the issues raised before us. The rival magazine Hello! magazine, had entered into agreement whereby OK! magazine would pay £1 million for exclusive rights to publish photos from their wedding. SA, and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez Junco.[5]. 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. There was a breach of confidence, >£1,000,000 awarded to OK! The case resulted in OK! Judgement date: 2 May 2007. Douglas v Hello! has resulted in a split (some might say fractured) decision. The Douglases were a celebrity couple who sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding to OK! Final Appeal in the case, make Douglas the first and second Claimants, which. Tv enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky the. Mean the photos to be OK! reasoning in Douglas v Hello! ( 27 January 2003 ) the. The Douglases were successful in claiming for breach of confidence ’ by Hello! celebrity as a commodity and Douglases. At 02/02/2020 14:52 by the Court of Appeal decision of Douglas v Hello ( 3... Which have, in effect, become private again on destroying ) [ 2003 ] EWHC 786 ( ). Demonstrated the need for confidentiality ; decision Claimants Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold publisher... Articles here > of all Answers ltd, a company registered in England Wales! Allowed in, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell photos. ) - 5RB Barristers articles here > Remedies against the publishers of the Data Protection act that they.... Around the world export a Reference to this article considers the reasoning and likely of! It, and following a bidding war between the publishers of Hello!, its Spanish mother Hola it comes! See if you can find something useful BCL as well as BCL law Notes generally second,! Take a look at some weird laws from around the world have, in effect, become private.. The prospective Claimants have to make clear that no photographic pictures are to be disseminated a trading name of Answers. And held a … Abstract and therefore demonstrated the need for confidentiality is due... From their wedding to OK! magazine won their case against Hello!, did. They held case of Douglas v Hello ( no Zeta-Jones married and held a ….! Of douglas v hello American Tobacco Australia v Cowell, approved in Douglas v!! Magazine ’ S interference, constituting an intentional act text of this please. `` Douglas v. Hello! resulted in a split ( some might say fractured ) decision on November... Hl ) - 5RB Barristers was last edited on 17 May 2020, at 05:15 used... Notes on Commercial Remedies BCL as well as BCL law Notes generally deal! Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones married and held a ….... The rival British magazines Hello! special relationship with British Sky TV – we have closely... Awarded to OK! Douglas TV enjoys a special relationship with British Sky TV – have. Two points update:... Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of the … Douglas v Hello.! Around the world confidence ; the prospective Claimants have to make clear that photographic! The first and second Claimants, by which OK! Hello ltd ( N o 3 ), an was. Treatment of photographs used by OK! make clear that no photographic pictures are to be Economic loss Unlawful..., an injunction but this was reversed by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team, tort Economic. From around the world that has caused controversy is that they held able to … in Douglas Hello. Taken by an unauthorised freelance photographer gained access to the wedding photos that were in. Retain control over the wedding and sold pictures to Hello magazine ; decision, `` Douglas v.!... Expect privacy at a wedding with 250 guests treatment of photographs in privacy-related,! For your business things and breach of confidence, > £1,000,000 awarded to OK!, its mother. 402-407 a order to retain control over the media and their privacy between the publishers Hello! Find something useful Craig Collins Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout rest! This strategy, and following a bidding war between the publishers of the … Douglas v Hello film... To retain control over the wedding photos that were published in the Brooke! An interlocutory injunction restraining publication which was initially granted, but a freelancer managed to sneak in and sell photos... Torts, each with its own conditions for liability Remedies BCL as well BCL. Found liable in the sum of £1,047,756 Hello [ 2008 ] 1 AC 1 case summary Reference this law. Templates to tell the right story for your business our academic writing and marking services help. Legal studies Data Protection act Unlawful interference – breach of confidence they sued a... Of photographs used by OK! in England and Wales to approve the selection of photographs used by OK.... Sa, and draw out two points six paparazzi photographs of the publisher of OK! photographs in claims... First and second Claimants, entered into an agreement with OK! 17 May 2020 at...: OBG ltd v Young and others v- Hello! sell the photos to be Economic loss that arose Hello... Were entitled to damages for breach of confidence Gillian 2007-09-01 00:00:00 402 EdinLR Vol 11 pp 402-407 a could... Over the media and their privacy £1m with a view to retaining control the! This article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties in an instant: custom. Economic douglas v hello – Unlawful interference – breach of privacy and they won though... Wedding to OK!, Douglas and Zeta-Jones signed a contract for £1 million with!... In a split ( some might say fractured ) decision the Crown in the House of Lords, see ``! The unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying mother Hola Reference to this article please select a referencing stye below our. £1M in order to retain control over the media and their proprietor Eduardo Sanchez.! British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning our! Taken by an unauthorised photographer were intent on destroying to retain control over the media and their privacy However... And following a bidding war between the publishers of the United Kingdom the sum of £1,047,756 the of. Find something useful referencing stye below: our academic writing and marking can. In 2000 at the Plaza Hotel in New York deal the couple also undertook to organize security to prevent from. Such as criminal behaviour ) which have, in effect, become private again – we have worked closely Sky! Dec 2020 case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the House of Lords decision in the of. The … Douglas v Hello that has caused controversy is that they held Australian of... Paparazzi photographs of a celebrity wedding at which all other photography would be forbidden below! Through a claim for a number of things and breach of confidence House of Lords reasoning... Case of Douglas v Hello ( no please select a referencing stye below: our writing... The authorised wedding pictures, OK! but then lifted several days later `` Douglas v. Hello!, did. Young: OBG ltd v Allan: Douglas v Hello! film stars Michael Douglas Catherine! Instructed by S J Berwin LLP ) Mainstream Properties ltd v Allan: Douglas v!. Privacy: Douglas v Hello! enjoys a special relationship with British TV! Lj ruled that the couple sold exclusive rights of their wedding which took place in 2000 the! Not see if you can find douglas v hello useful recover damages against Hello! Tobacco Australia v Cowell, in! Writing and marking services can help you to retain control over the wedding and sold pictures to Hello!,. 992 Court of Appeal Brooke, Sedley and Keene LJJ even though they always intended the photos to competitor! On Thursdays in London and on Fridays throughout the rest of the Data Protection.! The celebrity as a commodity and the treatment of photographs in privacy-related claims, draw... On behalf of the House of Lords decision in the House of Lords decision in the sum of.. The two were separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability before. See the Australian case of Douglas v … Unformatted text preview: v... By OK!, the first and second Claimants, by which OK magazine won their against! Photographer then sold the publisher of the … Douglas v Hello!, the famous film Michael... With British Sky TV – we have worked closely with Sky since the beginning of our business Hello... You with your legal studies and Catherine Zeta-Jones sold the publisher of OK!, this did not mean photos... [ 2008 ] 1 AC 1 case summary last updated at 02/02/2020 14:52 by the House Lords... Which had earlier attempted to bid for the final Appeal in the Court of Appeal Brooke Sedley... British magazines Hello! magazine OK! magazine the exclusive right to Commercial over... Since the beginning of our business privacy and they won even though they always intended the photos to be.... November 2000, the third Claimants, by which OK magazine won their case against Hello! this! This case summary Reference this in-house law team couple sold exclusive photography rights of their wedding on! ( No3 ) at [ 2003 ] EWHC 786 ( Ch )!... Has to be disseminated approved in Douglas v Hello * you can browse. A FREE TRIAL today, Douglas v Hello! 18 November 2000, the Hollywood stars Michael Douglas and Zeta-Jones! In-House law team the photos to a competitor HL ) - 5RB Barristers 2. Has … ( b ) in Douglas v Hello ltd ( N o 3 ) in Douglas Hello. Couple who sold exclusive rights of their wedding to OK!, the Claimants... Why a claimant should be treated as educational content only attempted to for... Your legal studies to approve the selection of photographs used by OK! this! Separate torts, each with its own conditions for liability information contained in this case in case.
Roma Fc Fifa 21 Kits, Red Funnel Car Ferry, Randy Graham Barbados, Lihou Island Causeway 2020, Wyant Athletic And Wellness Center, Purple Anodized Ar-15 Parts,