Hello!: This proves it wasn't about privacy

Hello! magazine’s publishing director Sally Cartwright has said the findings in the case brought against the magazine by Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas "bear out what we have always said – that this case was not brought about privacy but about a commercial deal: money and control".

Nine out of the 13 claims against the magazine were thrown out, she said, adding: “The areas where he has found against us are, frankly, commercial ones.”

The judge had also ruled there was no law of privacy in the UK, she said.

Mr Justice Lindsay said that unless the parties agreed, there would be a further hearing to determine the amount for which Hello! is liable to the couple and OK! magazine, which had signed a £1m (€1.5m) deal for exclusive coverage of the wedding in New York in November 2000.

Although the couple are claiming £500,000 (€728,000) and OK! £1.75m (€2.5m), Mr Justice Lindsay ruled out exemplary or aggravated damages.

The Marquesa De Varela, the celebrity fixer employed by Hello! who was also sued by the Douglases, was found not to be liable in damages.

Ms Cartwright said putting out ‘spoilers’ to ruin another magazine’s exclusive was commonplace in the industry.

She cited an occasion in which OK! published unauthorised pictures of Gloria Hunniford’s wedding ahead of an Hello! exclusive.

“Yes, we were upset at the time, but it never occurred to us to sue them - this is the way the printed press operates, and always has been,” she said.

Hello! now planned to appeal against the court’s ruling that the contract which existed between the Douglases and OK! was similar to a trade secret.

That ruling could force celebrity magazines to change the way they operated, Ms Cartwright said.

“OK! may well come to regret ever having brought this case as, if a contract for a celebrity wedding has indeed the status legally of a trade secret, OK! too will have to change its ways,” she said.