Hull And Holderness Magistrates' Court v Darroch & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HON. MR JUSTICE FOSKETT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mr. Alister Darroch and Mr. Charles Darroch sought a costs order against the Football Association Premier League Limited (FAPL) for their successful appeal which quashed their convictions for showing Premier League football matches via non-UK broadcasters. The Divisional Court dismissed the application, determining that the case should remain under the criminal costs regime and did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances to justify a costs order against FAPL.
Judgment
The Hon. Mrs Justice Carr:
Introduction
This is the judgment of the court.
By application dated 5 th June 2014 Mr Alister Darroch and Mr Charles Darroch (“the Applicants”) apply for a third party costs order against one of two interested parties, namely the Football Association Premier League Limited (“FAPL”). The application notice itself reads as follows :
“ We are asking the Court to determine whether, on what basis and to what extent the Interested Parties should bear the costs of the Applicants’ successful application for judicial review, including the costs below. ”
In the event, the application has been pursued only against FAPL and then in respect only of the Applicants’ costs below in the Hull and Holderness Magistrates’ Court.
FAPL is owned by the twenty constituent football teams of the Premier League. Its revenues are directed towards the promotion of association football in the United Kingdom and abroad. It has played no part in these proceedings before being served with the costs application. It resists the application on the ground that there is either no jurisdiction to make a costs order against it, or in the alternative, no justification for such an order.
Background
The application arises out of the Applicants’ successful appeal to quash their convictions for summary offences pursuant to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“s.297”).
Section 297 provides :
“ 297.— Offence of fraudulently receiving programmes.
(1) A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(2) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members “director” means a member of the body corporate .”
The Applicants, who are father and son, operated a number of public houses in the Humberside area at which they showed live televised football matches through BSkyB (“Sky”). Havin