Katy Guest: Dear Catherine/Mom, we love you but we'll sue you if we have to

When judgment in the Douglas v Hello! case was given by Mr Justice Lindsay on Friday, there wasn't a soul involved in the affair who didn't claim it as a victory. "The ruling means our client has been vindicated in all the major aspects of these claims," crowed Hello!'s lawyer. "This is a resounding and historic victory for OK! magazine, Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones," said the owners of OK!, the magazine that originally signed a deal with the Hollywood couple to publish pictures of their wedding, only to be scooped by Hello!

Since all the major players are so thrilled by the ruling, perhaps we, the public, can also find cause for celebration. Hello! was indicted not through the laws of privacy but through laws regarding confidence, or private information shared between two parties. Similar laws were used in 1849 to stop a defendant publishing etchings created by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert for each other, and again to prevent the Duke of Argyll revealing confidential details of his marriage to the Duchess. They're best known as a gag on disgruntled mistresses who might otherwise be able to blab confidential details about their relationships to the salivating tabloids.

Well, it's about time the confidence tricksters had a taste of their own medicine. Catherine Zeta-Jones felt violated, she says, when Hello! published photos of her elderly groom spoon-feeding her cake. The couple, so they say, were "devastated, shocked and appalled". But have they ever wondered how the public feel? Since the law states that the intimate goings on chez Douglas can be clearly proven to be nobody's business but their own, must they continually be inflicted on us?

Take Mr and Mrs Douglas's musical tastes. Only recently they splashed out £11,500 for an ad in Variety to tell Celine Dion "We can't wait to see your show!" Aren't you shocked and appalled? Douglas also placed an ad congratulating his wife on the success of Chicago, nauseatingly signing it from the baby, too. "Dear Catherine/Mom," it read. "We know how hard you worked and what a joy it turned out to be. We love you."

Devastating. Don't they have Hallmark cards in Hollywood?

The Douglases are one of those couples you meet on holiday who follow you to the beach and fill you in on the state of her ovaries over the calamaris. They're the kind of family that sends Christmas cards with a framed family photo and an epic account of their year: "Little Bramble came top in her ballet class again and Norman's hernia operation is finally scheduled for spring!"

Celebrities should start keeping their intimate relationships to themselves. The Douglases are not the only offenders. Does anyone remember asking to hear the gory details of Mr and Mrs Kim Cattrall's multi-orgasmic sex life? Or did we sign up to some sort of best-friend disclosure agreement just because we once thought she was quite good in a television programme? Most of us now know more about Daniella Westbrook's nose than we do about our own. Soap stars' bottoms accost us from every newsagent's shelf. And in LA, it seems, you just can't move for Courtney Love's breasts.

Now that the law of confidence has been brought out of its box, the public should fight back. No longer will we be defenceless against the onslaught of celebrity gush. Our Law of Confidence will insist that Christina Aguilera wears a sturdy pair of pants on Top of the Pops and Robbie Williams learns to keep his Priory insights to himself. Let celebrities fight over their exclusivity contracts. Next time one of them pops up on a chat show banging on about tantric sex, we'll sue.