Football Dataco Ltd & Ors v Smoot Enterprises Ltd & Anor (Rev 1)

[2011] EWHC 973 (Ch)

Case details

Case citations
[2011] EWHC 973 (Ch) · [2011] 1 WLR 1978
Court
High Court (Chancery Division)
Judgment date
14 April 2011
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Default judgment Database right
Keywords
default judgment judgment in default pending appeal reference to the ECJ database copyright fixture lists injunction damages to be assessed service out of the jurisdiction CPR Part 12
Outcome
application granted (default judgment for the claimants)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

Default judgment is not a determination on the merits. The court need not resolve a pleaded question of law where the claim discloses a cause of action that is not obviously bad.

Where an application is required because the claim includes an injunction or involves service out of the jurisdiction, the court’s task is to scrutinise the procedural circumstances and tailor the relief. It is not to second-guess the legal foundation of an unanswered claim. A pending appeal or reference to the ECJ may justify a stay in contested proceedings, but does not ordinarily prevent default judgment.

Factual background

The claimants, who organised and operated major football leagues, applied for default judgment against two defendants. They alleged copyright in fixture lists as databases and sui generis database rights in live match data. They sought permanent injunctions, damages to be assessed and, against the first defendant, an interim payment.

The defendants had been served out of the jurisdiction under CPR rule 6.33(1) and had not acknowledged service. In related proceedings, Football Data Co Ltd & ors v. Yahoo! UK Ltd & ors [2010] EWHC 841 (Ch), Floyd J had found that copyright subsisted in the fixture lists. The appeal, reported at [2010] EWCA Civ 1380, remained pending following a reference to the ECJ concerning Article 3 of the Database Directive. The central issue was whether that unresolved legal uncertainty prevented default judgment.

Held

  1. Disposition. The court granted default judgment substantially in the form of the draft order sought, subject to amendments made at the hearing. The order included relief for infringement of database copyright in the fixture lists, including damages to be assessed and a permanent injunction.
  2. Nature of default judgment. Default judgment is not judgment on the merits. Unlike judgment after trial or summary judgment, it does not require the court to form a view on the factual or legal merits of the claim. A pleaded claim based on an asserted construction of an agreement may therefore receive default judgment without the court deciding whether that construction is correct.
  3. Procedural supervision. CPR Part 12 distinguishes administrative requests for specified claims, including damages, from applications required where an injunction is sought or particular service-out circumstances arise. Rule 12.11(1) must be read in that procedural context. It does not require the court to second-guess the pleaded assertion that the facts disclose a cause of action. The application enables the court to scrutinise special circumstances and tailor the precise relief.
  4. Pending appeals. Under the general position in English law, a pending appeal does not ordinarily remove the binding authority of a decision under appeal or the persuasive effect of a first-instance decision. A stay or adjournment may be appropriate in contested proceedings where an appeal is imminent, but that is not automatic.
  5. Application of the principle. The unresolved appeal and ECJ reference in the related Yahoo proceedings created legal uncertainty and might have justified refusing summary judgment or staying a contested claim. They did not prevent default judgment here. The pleaded claim was not obviously bad in law, and the defendants’ failure to acknowledge service or defend entitled the claimants to judgment without resolving the underlying copyright issue. The related decisions were considered as part of the existing legal position, but the court did not determine the merits of database copyright.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

The present decision was a first-instance application. The judgment records the following related proceedings:

  • High Court (Chancery Division): In Football Data Co Ltd & ors v. Yahoo! UK Ltd & ors [2010] EWHC 841 (Ch), Floyd J held that the fixture lists attracted database copyright.
  • Court of Appeal: The appeal was considered in [2010] EWCA Civ 1380. The Court of Appeal referred questions concerning Article 3 of the Database Directive to the ECJ, and the appeal remained unresolved.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.