header-logo header-logo

10 May 2007
Issue: 7272 / Categories: Legal News , Media
printer mail-detail

Hello! ruling provides comfort for employers

The House of Lords ruling in the dispute between OK! magazine and Hello! over the wedding photos of Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michael Douglas shows the law will only interfere with the world of business in clearly defined instances, lawyers say.

After a seven-year legal battle, OK! won its appeal against glossy rival Hello! after the Law Lords decided that the £1m exclusive picture deal the Hollywood couple struck with OK! was capable of being protected by the courts.

 The Douglases and OK! sued Hello! for breach of confidence and damages after it published unofficial spoiler photographs in the same week as OK!’s “exclusive” shots.

The House of Lords decided that the £1m damages payment awarded by the High Court in April 2003 should stand. This overturns the Court of Appeal ruling that the deal between OK! and the Douglases did not give the magazine any enforceable legal rights.

In a 3-2 majority decision, the Law Lords decided the contract should have been binding. They, however, ruled that Hello! did not damage OK!’s business

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll