header-logo header-logo

Hello! ruling provides comfort for employers

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll