Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
View all articles
Authors

PRIVACY: OBG Ltd v Allan; Douglas v Hello! Ltd; Mainstream Properties Ltd v Young [2007] UKHL 21

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : obg-ltd-v-allan-douglas-v-hello-ltd-mainstream-properties-ltd-v-young-2007-ukhl-21
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 2, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87615

(House of Lords; Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood; 2 May 2007)

In the Douglas case the three criteria for liability for breach of confidence had been met: the information, private wedding photographs, had the necessary quality of confidence; the information had been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, in that the Douglases had made it clear that no photographs were to be taken or communicated to anyone; and there had been an unauthorised use of the information to the detriment of the party communicating it, that is OK!, which had paid £1 million for the benefit of the obligation of confidence imposed on all those present at the wedding. There was no reason why there should not be an obligation of confidence for the purpose of enabling someone to be the only source of publication if that was something worth paying for. The information was capable of being protected not because it concerned the Douglases image or their private life, but because it was information of commercial value over which the Douglases had sufficient control to enable them to impose an obligation of confidence.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from