Matchroom Boxing Ltd & Anor v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors

The court may grant website-blocking orders to prevent large-scale infringement of intellectual property rights where the order is proportionate. The assessment includes whether the order will be effective and dissuasive, whether equally effective but less onerous measures are available, and whether it creates unjustified barriers to legitimate trade. The court must also consider cost, complexity and safeguards against misuse. Any interference with internet users’ rights to impart or receive information may be justified by the legitimate aim of preventing substantial infringement, provided the interference is proportionate.

Matchroom sought orders requiring internet service providers to block or impede access to streaming servers carrying infringing live streams of professional boxing events. The application concerned events broadcast by Sky, including pay-per-view events, and was supported or unopposed by the defendants. The proposed order differed from earlier football and UEFA orders because events occurred irregularly and would be notified in advance rather than listed for a season. The central issue was whether the court had jurisdiction and should exercise its discretion to grant the requested blocking order.

1. Application granted. The court had jurisdiction to make the blocking order and exercised its discretion in favour of Matchroom.
2. The court adopted essentially the same reasoning as in UEFA v BT I. The proposed order was proportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing large-scale infringement of Matchroom’s and Sky’s rights.
3. In assessing proportionality, the court considered that the order would be effective and dissuasive; that Matchroom had no equally effective but less onerous remedy; and that the order would not create barriers to legitimate trade. It was not unduly complicated or costly and contained safeguards against misuse.
4. The order did not impair the defendants’ rights to carry on business. To the limited extent that it interfered with internet users’ rights to impart or receive information, that interference was justified and proportionate.
5. The court accepted the modified monitoring and notification arrangements. Although the irregular timing of events created a theoretically greater risk of over-blocking, the evidence indicated that there should be no material practical difference. There was no order as to costs.