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 so the sides must split £8m in legal costs.

Macfarlanes

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll