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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll