Matchroom Boxing Ltd & Anor v British Telecommunications Plc & Ors

A fresh website-blocking injunction may be granted under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 where evidence shows that the respondents’ services are being used to infringe copyright and the proposed technical mechanism is effective and proportionate. Dynamic blocking may be used where it does not create a significant risk of over-blocking. The court may keep operational details confidential if disclosure would facilitate circumvention, while considering whether legitimate third parties can obtain controlled access. A procedural practice of using a Part 23 application for successive orders may be accepted where it provides administrative advantages, although a fresh Part 8 claim form would ordinarily be appropriate for a fresh order.

Matchroom Boxing Limited and Matchroom Sport Limited sought a further website-blocking order against six internet service providers. An earlier order made by Arnold J under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 had expired under a sunset clause. Matchroom initially characterised the application as an extension and variation, but the court treated it as an application for a fresh order using an updated dynamic blocking mechanism previously used in proceedings brought by the Football Association Premier League Limited. The respondents either supported or did not oppose the application. The issues included the appropriate procedural route, the suitability and proportionality of the mechanism, and whether parts of the order should remain confidential.

1. The application was treated as a request for a fresh website-blocking order, rather than an extension or variation of the earlier order. Ordinarily, a fresh Part 8 claim form should have been issued. However, the court accepted the established practice of proceeding by Part 23 application because it kept successive applications together administratively and no useful purpose would be served by requiring a new claim form in this case.
2. The evidence showed that the existing blocking mechanism had operated smoothly, reduced access to unauthorised live streams, and had not resulted in complaints about legitimate content being blocked. The court was satisfied that the updated dynamic mechanism previously approved in FAPL v British Telecommunications plc [No 1] [2017] EWHC 480 (Ch) was appropriate and did not create a significant risk of over-blocking. The order was made under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
3. The order was justified on evidence that operators of the target servers used the respondents’ services to infringe Matchroom’s United Kingdom copyrights. The respondents were intermediaries and were not themselves treated as infringers. The blocking obligations were limited by the event periods, technical means, notification requirements, suspension provisions, and a sunset clause expiring on 1 October 2022. The applicants also received permission to apply for a further extension.
4. Schedules identifying target servers and detection criteria were properly kept confidential. Public disclosure would provide information capable of assisting infringement and circumvention. Nevertheless, the court considered it appropriate to record publicly that suitable applicants might obtain access to the confidential arrangements on controlled terms, with the court available to resolve any disagreement.
5. The order was made on 23 October 2020. The proceedings were stayed save for applications relating to the order, and costs were reserved.