Yet another chapter has been written in the story of privacy v freedom of speech - and on this occasion privacy has the leading role.

Perhaps appropriately, this new chapter emanates from a case regarding two rival celebrity magazines - OK! and Hello! - and the publication of photographs of two media darlings, the actors Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones.The Court of Appeal hearing was triggered by the publication in Hello! of allegedly improperly obtained and unauthorised photographs of the couple's wedding.

The ultimate decision of the court was to overturn the claimants' injunction and allow the defendants to publish what the claimants objected to.

A success for Hello! but not necessarily for freedom of speech.Privacy has never been recognised as a cause of action in UK law, so any suggestion of a detour from this principle is noteworthy.

In the boldest of the three Court of Appeal judges' decisions, Lord Justice Sedley maintained that Do uglas and Zeta Jones had a 'powerful prima facie claim to redress for invasion of their privacy'.The twists in this saga between two major corporations, the famous actor, his blushing bride and the media, make for a tortuous script not unlike that of a soap opera.

And they may have implications for other celebrity couples such as David and Victoria Beckham, who have a deal with OK! magazine.Douglas and Zeta Jones attracted much publicity over their love affair.

So when they decided to tie the knot, it was not surprising that competitors were anxious to gain the exclusive rights to publish the type of wedding photographs we have come to expect in OK! and Hello!But it was OK! that secured the deal, a little more than a week before the ceremony, obtaining the exclusive rights to publish photographs of the New York wedding.

The couple commanded a large sum for these rights, while at the same time retaining wide rights of approval over what would be published - the portrayal of their image in the film and entertain-ment industry generally being of 'incredible importance' to them.In return, Douglas and Zeta Jones undertook to ensure that 'no other media .

.

.

shall be permitted access to the wedding, and that no guests or anyone else present at the wedding .

.

.

shall be allowed to take photographs'.

In that way, the couple could be sure that unfortunate poses, spinach-teeth and double-chins would be out, while OK! ensured that the approved and exclusive pictures would be in its pages only.However, notwithstanding checks on the staff and the guests at the wedding, the temptation proved too much and a number of cameras were confiscated by security staff.

The films were exposed to daylight to destroy any unauthorised photographs.

Nevertheless, some unauthorised photographs did see the light of day.

Nine pictures of the wedding found their way to the company Hola SA, which bought the exclusive UK rights for publication in Hello!On the evening before the intended publication, an ex parte injunction was successfully sought by the claimants over the telephone and an on-notice application was made the following day by the defendants.

But the injunction was upheld prohibiting the publication of the photographs in Hello! magazine.However, the judge did not give reasons for his decision and Hello! appealed.

A panel of two judges was split and the matter was referred to three other Court of Appeal judges, Lord Justices Brooke, Sedley and Keene who lifted the injunction.So, freedom of expression wins out yet again? Not so fast.

Despite the ultimate ruling of the Court of Appeal, significant inroads may have been made into a new law of privacy in the UK.Unsurprisingly, however, opinion within the profession is divided as to the likely impact of the decision.

In his judgment, Lord Justice Sedley says 'the law recognises a right of personal privacy'.

Lord Justice Keene was more doubtful, saying that between privacy and breach of confidence, the existing cause of action commonly used in similar circumstances, 'there is no watertight division between the two concepts'.Lord Justice Brooke said that it was not necessary to decide one way or another.

He said that whether the UK judges give recognition to rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (to respect for private and family life) 'by an extension of the existing frontiers of the law of confidence, or by recognising the existence of new relationships which give rise to enforceable legal right .

.

.

is not for this court on this occasion, to predict'.The legal team for the claimants, Martin Kramer and Nathalie McIntyre of City firm Theodore Goddard, hailed this landmark decision, which 'gave explicit recognition to an actionable right to privacy in English law'.

But according to Keith Schilling, senior partner at London firm Schilling & Lom and Partners - which 'has been obtaining privacy injunctions for more than 15 years, usually by way of breach of confidence cases' - the Douglas case 'contains no new law and no particular surprises' and moreover 'does not create a new right of privacy'.Chris Hutchings, from London firm Charles Russell and the solicitor acting for the defendants, comes down somewhere in the middle, maintaining that 'this is not the be all and end all of a right to privacy, but it is the first step in the development of the law in this area'.Razi Mireskandari, media partner at fellow London firm Simons Muirhead & Burton, appreciates that the decision may mean a right to privacy, but he is concerned at where the ruling might lead.

'We should be striving for greater openness,' he says, 'rather than greater privacy.

In a democratic society, we should be thinking very carefully about where we are heading.'Pragmatically, he says 'England should grow up', adding: 'We get upset about pictures of people topless on the beach.

Pictures like that, or those of people at weddings, are not private.

Privacy should be reserved for our deepest, darkest secrets.'If future rulings do interpret this to establish a privacy law, then this must be regarded as a sea change from the well-established position of UK law, set out in the 1991 case involving the 'Allo Allo!' comic actor Gordon Kaye, that 'in English law there is no right to privacy'.Despite often demanding and deserving circumstances, the UK courts have been unwilling to find that a right of privacy exists.

Instead, they fitted the circumstances before them into existing torts such as malicious falsehood and, more often, breach of confidence.In the Kaye case, the actor had been involved in a horrific accident which left him with serious injuries and wounds to his head.

Journalists gained access to him, and photographs and a purported interview with him were published.Yet despite what must surely have been a gross invasion of privacy, there was no such cause of action through which he could gain redress under UK law.

Instead, and no doubt in an attempt to show its distaste at the defendants' actions, the court fitted the facts into an action in malicious falsehood.The more frequently used cause of action in such circumstances has been breach of confidence.

Here, a claimant seeks relief where information has been imparted in circumstances of confidence, such that it would be unconscionable for the recipient to break that confidence.The problem with this is that it is often necessary to construct 'an artificial relationship of confidentiality'.

Lord Justice Sedley says a right of privacy 'accord[s] recognition to the fact that the law has to protect not only those people whose trust has been abused, but those who simply find themselves subjected to an unwanted intrusion into their personal lives'.In the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1999] 3 WLR 1,010, The Times failed to establish a UK public-figure defence - but the Court of Appeal set guidelines for the availability of the defence of qualified privilege, appearing to give the media a degree of protection from libel actions.Why then, are the courts seeming to take with the hand that gave, by adding yet another weapon to the already well-stocked armoury o f the powerful celebrity would-be-claimant?Lord Justice Sedley says the reasons for this change are twofold.

'First, equity and the common law are today in a position to respond to an increasingly invasive social environment by affirming that everybody has a right to some private space.

Secondly, and in any event, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the courts of this country to give appropriate effect to the right to respect for private and family life set out in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.'Much of the commentary following the implementation of the Act last October anticipated that freedom of expression and speech, guaranteed by article 6, would often be the trump card when weighing these two rights, particularly if claimants had benefited from it.But according to Mr Kramer and Ms McIntyre, the fact that Douglas and Zeta Jones are celebrities did not deprive them of that right: 'While not creating a "privacy code" as such for celebrities, the decision makes it clear that people in the public eye have a right to privacy in the same way as ordinary mortals.'However, by willingly selling the rights to what would otherwise be the private occasion of their wedding, with the knowledge and intent that they be spread across OK!'s pages for viewing worldwide, the court was persuaded that they had effectively 'sold most of the privacy they now seek to protect to the third claimant for a handsome sum'.In deciding whether an injunction should be granted, the court has to weigh up the respective risks that injustice may result from deciding one way or another on untested evidence.

The court found, with 'hesitation' and 'misgiving', that the damage to killing an entire issue of Hello! weighed more heavily and that, if successful at trial, the claimants could be compensated in monetary terms.The court took account of the fact that the first two claimants had effectively treated their privacy as a commercial commodity.

According to Lord Justice Brooke, 'if persons chose to lessen the degree of privacy attaching to an otherwise private occasion, then the balance to be struck between their rights and other considerations is likely to be affected'.

He says it was of 'considerable relevance' that the wedding was soon afterwards to be widely publicised in OK!David Sherborne, junior counsel for the claimants, points out that the case effectively recognises a right to celebrity which can be bought and sold, the result of which being that it will become 'almost a form of intellectual property or a form of merchandising as it is in the US'.Mr Schilling maintains: 'It is an aspect of an individual's right of privacy that they can decide if and when they wish to make otherwise confidential information private.' The real meaning of privacy is 'an individual's right to put otherwise private information into the public domain in the way he may wish to do so'.So, is a person's name and whereabouts private information that can be so protected? It would appear that it is.

After the Court of Appeal's decision in this case, came the decision in the case of Venables & Thompson v News Group Newspapers.The court was required to weigh the public's right to know and the media's right to report on the identity and whereabouts of the James Bulger killers, against the boys' rights to maintain their anonymity when they reach majority.

Stressing the importance of the Douglas decision, Mr Hutchings said that in deciding in favour of anonymity, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss referred to the Douglas case and to Lord Justice Sedley's assert ion that there is now a distinct right to privacy.Mr Schilling remarks wryly on the oddity of a situation where 'it is easier to get an injunction if you are a convicted killer than if you are a well-known celebrity'.It seems a new tort of privacy invasion is either here, or is at least around the corner, whether in new form or by an extension of the law of confidence.So media organisations beware.

And beware in particular of the once ridiculed, seemingly powerless Press Complaints Commission (PCC) code of conduct, voluntarily entered into by media organisations.

Time and again the PCC has been described as a dog with a bark but no bite.

But in Mr Hutchings's view, if nothing else this case has effectively given statutory recognition to the code.According to s.12 of the Human Rights Act, the courts must have regard to any relevant privacy code.

The 'disarmingly simple' rules, said Lord Justice Brooke, must be considered where any issues of freedom of expression are considered.Clause 3 of the PCC code provides both that 'everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life' and that 'the use of long-lens photography to take pictures of people in private places without their consent is unacceptable'.Perhaps, like Rudyard Kipling's fables 'How the camel got its hump' and 'How the rhino got its skin', this case may become the story of 'How the PCC got its bite'.