Douglas & Anor v Northern And Shell Plc & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 353 (21 December 2000)

Douglas & Anor v Northern And Shell Plc & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 353 (21 December 2000)

The injunction was discharged because the claimants had not satisfied the statutory threshold under Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that they were likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed. Although there was a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of confidence, the balance of convenience, including the significant harm to the defendants from restraining an entire weekly issue and the importance of freedom of expression, weighed against continuing the injunction. The judge at first instance failed to give adequate reasons, requiring the appellate court to exercise its own discretion afresh.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 353
Parties
Claimant: Michael Douglas; Claimant: Catherine Zeta-Jones; Claimant: Northern & Shell plc; Defendant: Hello! Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Interim Injunction / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Pending Trial
Outcome
Injunction discharged; appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Confidence, Interim Injunctions, Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Malicious Falsehood, Interference With Contractual Relations
Media Law Privacy Law Equity Contract Law Breach of Confidence Interim Injunctions Freedom of Expression Privacy +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Douglas

Claimant

Catherine Zeta-Jones

Claimant

Northern & Shell plc

Claimant

Hello! Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Interim Injunction / Appeal From Interlocutory Injunction Pending Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction restraining publication of wedding photographs should be continued until trial
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have a serious issue to be tried for breach of confidence, contract, or malicious falsehood
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours continuation of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was discharged because the claimants had not satisfied the statutory threshold under Section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 that they were likely to establish at trial that publication should not be allowed. Although there was a serious issue to be tried regarding breach of confidence, the balance of convenience, including the significant harm to the defendants from restraining an entire weekly issue and the importance of freedom of expression, weighed against continuing the injunction. The judge at first instance failed to give adequate reasons, requiring the appellate court to exercise its own discretion afresh.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; appeal allowed

Orders

  • The interim injunction restraining publication by Hello! Ltd is discharged.
  • No further order for continuation of injunctive relief pending trial.