Performing Right Society Ltd v Qatar Airways Group QCS

At the first stage of the Spiliada test, the court must identify the forum with which the dispute has the most real and substantial connection. Practical features may be relevant where they bear on that connection, but comparative procedural disadvantages usually belong at the second stage. The assessment must reflect the issues actually likely to arise and the global character of the dispute. The fact that more acts are governed by one country’s law does not, by itself, make that country the natural forum. Foreign copyright claims remain justiciable in England where jurisdiction exists.

Performing Right Society Ltd, an English collecting society, brought a worldwide copyright infringement claim against Qatar Airways Group Q.C.S.C. concerning music and audio-visual content made available through the airline’s inflight entertainment system. The claim relied on UK law, Qatari law and the laws of other countries.

Qatar Airways accepted that the English court had jurisdiction because it had been served within the jurisdiction, but applied under CPR rule 11(1) for a stay in favour of Qatar on forum non conveniens grounds. Alternatively, it sought a case-management stay of the non-UK claims. The central issue was whether Qatar was clearly and distinctly the natural forum and, if not, whether case-management considerations nevertheless required a stay.

1. Forum non conveniens. The application was dismissed. Applying Spiliada, Qatar Airways had to show that Qatar was an available forum and clearly and distinctly the natural forum. If that were established, the court would then consider whether substantial justice required the claim to remain in England.
2. The first-stage inquiry concerns the forum with which the action has the most real and substantial connection. Practical aspects of litigation can be relevant at that stage where they bear on that connection. Comparative procedural disadvantages, such as a less favourable costs regime, generally concern the second stage and do not suffice unless they show that substantial justice would not be done.
3. The assessment must be conducted by reference to the issues likely to arise. This was a global copyright dispute involving acts in many countries and multiple applicable laws. Although Qatari law would govern more alleged acts than UK law, that fact did not make Qatar clearly and distinctly the forum with the strongest connection.
4. The Qatari courts had a copyright law capable of dealing with the relevant issues, and it was not shown that they could not apply foreign law appropriately. Relative specialist expertise could be considered, but was unlikely to carry much weight.
5. Case management. Foreign copyright claims were justiciable in England under Lucasfilm v Ainsworth. Since the defendant was within the jurisdiction and the forum application had failed, the overriding objective did not require a stay. The foreign-law issues could be managed proportionately at a case management conference. The application was dismissed.