header-logo header-logo

07 June 2007 / Anna Caddick
Issue: 7276 / Categories: Features , Media
printer mail-detail

Show me the money!

Where does Douglas v Hello! leave the law of confidence? Anna Caddick investigates

On 2 May 2007, the House of Lords (split 3-2) found in favour of OK! magazine in the long-running case of Douglas v Hello! [2007] UKHL 21, [2007] All ER (D) 44 (May). After six years, the Law Lords have given the final word: Hello! is liable to OK! for £1,033,156 lost profits caused through spoiling OK!’s exclusive for the Catherine Zeta-Jones/Michael Douglas wedding. OK! failed in its claim for the tort of intentionally causing loss by unlawful means, but won on the law of confidence. The overwhelming majority of the 96-page judgment deals with economic torts. This article examines only the confidence action, which was sidelined.

OK! contracted with the Douglases to publish exclusive photographs of their 2000 New York wedding. The wedding had heavy security and guests were not permitted to take photographs. Despite this, a paparazzo crashed and took some bad quality photographs. Hello! published them on the same day that OK! published its exclusive. Mr Justice Lindsay

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

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