The Football Association Premier League Limited v Claire Pattie & Ors

In a copyright infringement claim where the defendants fail to acknowledge service or defend, the court may grant default judgment where the pleadings disclose an arguable and sufficiently particularised case and service requirements are proved. Relief may include orders requiring defendants to provide witness evidence where the pleaded basis for that relief is established.

Costs remain subject to the court’s discretion. In assessing them, the court must consider reasonableness and proportionality. The costs approach applicable in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court may be a relevant benchmark in a standard case, but it does not impose a ceiling in the High Court. The assessment remains fact-sensitive and depends on the evidence.

The claimant alleged that the defendants infringed copyright in logos, graphics and films used in Premier League football broadcasts. It also alleged that the first and second defendants were responsible for the management of the third defendant club and were involved in the infringements.

The claim documents and the application for default judgment were served on the defendants. The periods for acknowledging service or filing a defence expired without any such document being filed. The claimant therefore sought default judgment, consequential relief, and costs.

1. Default judgment and relief. The particulars of claim sufficiently pleaded ownership of the relevant copyright works, the defendants’ responsibility for the third defendant, and the alleged infringements. The court was satisfied that the claim disclosed a case of copyright infringement. Service of the claim documents and the default-judgment application was proved, and the relevant time limits had expired. Judgment was therefore appropriate.
2. The court granted an order in the form sought, including the provision requiring witness statements from the defendants. Orders of that kind had been made in earlier cases, and the pleaded basis for the relief appeared in paragraph 75 of the particulars of claim.
3. Costs. The court must first assess the statement of costs for reasonableness and proportionality. In a standard case, it is appropriate to take into account the costs position that would have applied in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court. That position is a relevant consideration rather than a binding maximum. The High Court retains discretion, and each case turns on its facts and the evidence available.
4. The earlier approach of Marcus Smith J was broadly followed by Nugee J and Sir Geoffrey Vos CHC. The present case was not entirely standard because of difficulties with service, repeated investigative visits, lack of cooperation, and delay associated with the Covid-19 pandemic. Allowing for those matters, while taking account of excessive hours, elevated hourly rates and the overall work claimed, costs were summarily assessed at £25,000.

Default judgment was entered for the claimant and the defendants were ordered to pay £25,000 in costs.