Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd– the Protection of Privacy in English Private Law
| Published date | 01 September 2001 |
| Date | 01 September 2001 |
| Author | N. A. Moreham |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00350 |
CASES
Douglas and others vHello! Ltd – the Protection of
Privacy in English Private Law
N. A. Moreham*
The statement in Douglas and others vHello! Ltd 1that ‘we have reached a pointat
which it can be said with confidence that the law recognises and will appropriately
protect a right of personal privacy’2must be one of the most long-awaited passages
in the English common law. It, and other dicta in the case, make Douglas the first
case in which an English court has expressly recognised a right of privacy in
England, something which academics and law reformers have been demanding for
over 20 years.
The facts
The facts of the case arise out of the wedding of the celebrity actors, Michael
Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones (the first and second claimants). The couple
entered into an agreement with OK! magazine (the third claimants) which gave
OK! exclusive rights to photographs of the wedding for a nine-month period and
the right to publish an accompanying article. The couple retained wide rights of
approval over what was to be published.
As part of the agreement, Douglas and Zeta-Jones undertook to do their utmost
to ensure that no other photographs would be taken of the wedding. In accordance
with that undertaking, staff at the wedding were required to sign confidentiality
agreements and were checked by security guards before entering the wedding or
reception areas. Guests were also asked not to take photographs and were visually
checked by security staff as they moved around the hotel. Any visible camera
equipment was confiscated.
Despite these measures unauthorised photographs of the wedding were taken and
offered for sale on the international market a few days later. These photographs
were bought by OK!’s chief competitor, Hello! magazine. The claimants
immediately applied for, and were granted, an interim injunction to prevent Hello!
from publishing the photographs (the injunction would have prevented Hello! from
publishing that week’s issue of the magazine). The defendants appealed.
Privacy and breach of confidence
Although the injunction was ultimately discharged, the most significant aspect of
the case was the recognition that the couple had an actionable right of privacy
ßThe Modern Law Review Limited 2001 (MLR 64:5, September). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 767
* Gonville and Caius College, University of Cambridge.
I would like to thank Tony Weir for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.
2ibid para 110, Sedley LJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial