The Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors

The court may extend a website-blocking order for a further period where the evidence demonstrates that the existing order has been effective, proportionate and capable of preventing access to infringing streams without overblocking. The court must independently be satisfied that the order remains justified. Adjustments to the order may be appropriate where experience shows that the original terms can be circumvented, including by enlarging the class of infringing servers or delaying notification to hosting providers.

The claimant sought an extension of a blocking order requiring internet service providers to block, or impede, access to servers supplying infringing live streams of Premier League footage. Earlier seasonal orders had been made in the same proceedings, with reasons given in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch) and Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 1877 (Ch).

The application was supported by some defendants, unopposed by the remainder, and made on agreed terms. The central issue was whether a further seasonal order was justified, including proposed amendments responding to experience under the previous order.

1. The application was granted. The court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to make the requested order and that it was appropriate to exercise its discretion to do so.

2. The evidence showed that the previous seasonal order had been very effective in blocking access to the target servers during Premier League matches. Checks had found no evidence of overblocking. Those matters supported the continued justification and proportionality of the blocking remedy.

3. The court was entitled to modify the terms of the order in light of operational experience. The adjustment to the first criterion in Confidential Schedule 3 enlarged the subset of infringing streaming servers covered by the order. The delayed notification requirement addressed actual attempts to circumvent the previous order and was therefore a real and material justification for the amendment.

4. The court adopted, in substance, the reasons given for the earlier order in Football Association Premier League Ltd v British Telecommunications plc [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch). It also took account of the effectiveness of the later order and the evidence of attempted circumvention. The extension was made for a further Premier League season. There was no order as to costs.

The judgment describes earlier seasonal orders made in the same proceedings. Reasons for the first order were given in [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch), and reasons for the second order in [2017] EWHC 1877 (Ch). No appellate history is stated.