Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
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