Football Association Premier League Limited v Dawn Houghton & Anor.

In assessing costs in substantially similar copyright infringement claims, the court should distinguish costs necessary to establish infringement from work capable of being recycled from precedents. Reasonable investigation costs and the cost of preparing an infringement schedule may be recovered in full where they are central to proving the claim. Generic pleadings and witness evidence should ordinarily be reduced to reflect template-based work, subject to case-specific features. A claimant’s choice to issue in the High Court does not prevent the court from considering the proportionate costs that would have been recoverable in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court. An appropriate discount may therefore be applied, while allowing additional recovery for unusual conduct, additional applications or unusually extensive investigation.

The claimant brought six substantially similar claims alleging unauthorised communication to the public of Premier League football broadcasts and associated copyright works. The defendants were publicans or premises supervisors, and Barclays Bank plc was joined in certain claims for procedural reasons only.

The claimant obtained judgment in default in each claim, including against Mr Fay, who appeared but did not oppose judgment. The court then assessed the claimant’s costs summarily. The central issues were the proper treatment of investigation and scheduling costs, deductions for largely standardised documents, and whether the costs regime of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court should inform the assessment.

1. Judgment and costs. Judgment in default was entered against each defendant. Costs were awarded to the claimant and summarily assessed separately in each claim.
2. Costs necessary to establish infringement. The investigator’s costs and the costs of preparing schedules identifying the infringed copyright works were central to establishing the claims. They were recoverable in full where reasonable. The higher investigation costs in Canavan were justified because two premises had to be visited.
3. Work on documents. The pleadings and witness statements were substantially based on pro forma documents from earlier claims. The court therefore generally applied a 50 per cent deduction to the remaining document costs. That approach was adjusted where individual circumstances caused additional work, including alternative service in Houghton and evasive and violent conduct in Quinn.
4. Other costs. Attendances were generally capped at £2,000 per application, with an increase for Quinn. Counsel’s fees were generally limited to £200, with a modest uplift for Fay because counsel appeared to challenge the costs application. The claimant’s hearing attendance costs and court fees were allowed in full.
5. IPEC costs regime. Although the claimant was entitled to choose the High Court, the court held that the costs regime of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 governing the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court was relevant to proportionality. The claims could have been issued in that court, where the maximum recoverable costs would have been £10,000 per application. Discounts were therefore applied in the standard cases, but not in Quinn and were adjusted in Houghton and Canavan to reflect their exceptional features.