Douglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Limited, Hola SA, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Limited, Ramey: CA 12 Feb 2003

The claimants claimed infringement of the privacy of their wedding celebrations. They requested permission for service out of the jurisdiction to join Mr Ramey as defendant, saying he had been the one who had taken some of the photographs in New York at issue. Mr Ramey resisted saying that, being resident in California, there was no good cause for the court to assume jurisdiction over him. It was accepted that in the imminent full trial, no issue could be taken against him.
Held: If there was a serious issue to be tried against him, England was the appropriate place to hear it. His alleged involvement was as a participator, and not just as an assistant. Appeal allowed.

Scott Baker, Rix Master Of The Rolls (Lord Phillips)
[2003] EWCA Civ 139, [2003] EMLR 585
Civil Procedure Rules 6.20
England and Wales
CitedBerezovsky and Glouchkov v Forbes Inc and Michaels CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant sought damages from the defendant for a magazine article claiming that he was involved in organised crime in Russia. The defendants appealed against the striking out of elements of the defence suggesting lesser meanings. Was meaning a . .
Appeal fromDouglas, Zeta-Jones, Northern and Shell Plc v Hello! Ltd, Hola Sa, Junco, The Marquesa De Varela, Neneta Overseas Ltd, Ramey ChD 27-Jan-2003
The claimants sought an order striking out the defendants’ defence on the grounds that, by destroying documents, the possibility of a fair trial had been prejudiced.
Held: Refusing the order, save as to certain paragraphs of the defence, the . .

Cited by:
See AlsoDouglas etc v Hello! Ltd etc ChD 11-Apr-2003
The claimants were to be married. They sold the rights to publish photographs of their wedding, but various of the defendants took and published unauthorised pictures.
Held: The claimants had gone to lengths to ensure the commercial value of . .
CitedAshton Investments Ltd. and Another v OJSC Russian Aluminium (Rusal) and others ComC 18-Oct-2006
The claimants sought damages for breach of confidence saying that the defendants had hacked into their computer systems via the internet to seek privileged information in the course of litigation. The defendants denied this and said the courts had . .
CitedHRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
Defence had no prospect of success – Struck Out
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Jurisdiction

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.179038