The Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure & Ors

The Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure & Ors

The Claimant has not demonstrated that the Defendants' Article 81 EC defence has no real prospect of success. The defence raises substantive legal and factual issues, particularly in light of legislative and market developments since Coditel II. Summary judgment is refused. There is no sufficient basis to stay the Article 81 defence, as it is closely linked to the main issues and a stay would risk inefficiency and increased costs. The application for a stay is also refused.

Parties
Claimant: The Football Association Premier League Limited; Defendant: QC Leisure; Defendant: Mr David Richardson; Defendant: AV Station PLC; Defendant: Mr Malcolm Chamberlain; Defendant: Michael Madden; Defendant: Sanjay Raval; Defendant: David Greenslade; Defendant: S. R. Leisure Limited; Defendant: Phillip George Charles Houghton; Defendant: Derek Owen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment And/or Stay
Outcome
Claimant's applications for summary judgment and for a stay of the Article 81 defence are refused.
Legal Topics
Article 81 EC Treaty, Exclusive Territorial Licensing, Conditional Access Devices, Summary Judgment, Stay of Proceedings
Competition Law Copyright Law European Union Law Article 81 EC Treaty Exclusive Territorial Licensing Conditional Access Devices Summary Judgment Stay of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Football Association Premier League Limited

Claimant

QC Leisure

Defendant

Mr David Richardson

Defendant

AV Station PLC

Defendant

Mr Malcolm Chamberlain

Defendant

Michael Madden

Defendant

Sanjay Raval

Defendant

David Greenslade

Defendant

S. R. Leisure Limited

Defendant

Phillip George Charles Houghton

Defendant

Derek Owen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment And/or Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Article 81 EC Treaty defence to copyright and conditional access claims has a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted on the Article 81 defence
  3. 3 Whether the trial of the Article 81 defence should be stayed until after the main copyright claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant has not demonstrated that the Defendants' Article 81 EC defence has no real prospect of success. The defence raises substantive legal and factual issues, particularly in light of legislative and market developments since Coditel II. Summary judgment is refused. There is no sufficient basis to stay the Article 81 defence, as it is closely linked to the main issues and a stay would risk inefficiency and increased costs. The application for a stay is also refused.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications for summary judgment and for a stay of the Article 81 defence are refused.

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment on the Article 81 defence refused.
  • Application for a stay of the Article 81 defence refused.