Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3)
A magazine that published unauthorised photographs of a celebrity wedding, knowing that another magazine had exclusive rights, was liable to that magazine for breach of confidence.
Facts
Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones, the film stars, sold the exclusive rights to publish photographs of their wedding to OK! magazine for £1 million. Strict security was in place at the wedding to prevent other photographs being taken. A photographer gained access by pretending to be a guest, and secretly took photographs, which he sold to Hello! magazine, a rival of OK!. Hello! published them shortly before OK! published the authorised photographs. OK! sued Hello!.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that Hello! was liable to OK! for breach of confidence. Lord Hoffmann said that the photographs of the wedding were information of commercial value over which the Douglases had sufficient control to enable them to impose an obligation of confidence, and that they had transferred the benefit of that obligation to OK!. Hello! knew that the photographs were taken without consent and that OK! had exclusive rights, so it was in breach of confidence. The case was decided together with OBG v Allan, on the economic torts.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
- Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27, [2020] AC 612
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
