United King Films Distribution Ltd & Ors v British Telecommunications PLC & Ors

A website-blocking injunction under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 may be granted where the court is satisfied that: the respondents are service providers; users or operators of the target service infringe copyright; those persons use the providers’ services to do so; and the providers have actual knowledge of the infringement.

The court must also assess proportionality by weighing the injunction’s likely benefit against its burdens on service providers and third parties, including the risk of interference with legitimate content or trading. Conventional safeguards, including notification provisions, a right to apply, a sunset clause and a cross-undertaking in damages, may support proportionality.

The applicants, four Israeli Hebrew broadcasters, sought an injunction requiring United Kingdom internet service providers to block access to websites operated as “Israel TV”. The websites allegedly provided unauthorised live streams of Israeli television channels and on-demand access to previously broadcast programmes.

The application was unopposed by the relevant internet service providers, subject to minor adjustments to the proposed order. The court considered whether the statutory requirements for a blocking injunction were met, whether the target activities infringed copyright and used the providers’ services, whether the providers had actual knowledge, and whether the proposed order was proportionate.

1. Application granted. The court made the requested website-blocking injunction under section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and/or section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
2. The four requirements identified in Columbia Pictures Industries v British Telecommunications Plc [2024] EWHC 1789 (Ch) were satisfied: the respondents were service providers; users or operators of the target websites infringed copyright; those users or operators used the respondents’ services to commit the infringements; and the respondents had actual knowledge of them.
3. The live streams constituted communications to the public by broadcasting contrary to section 20(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. The on-demand material was made available contrary to section 20(2)(b) once it was placed on a server and made available for download, whether or not it was actually accessed.
4. The evidence established the applicants’ copyright ownership and infringement. The target websites contained no legitimate material, so overblocking was not a risk. Suppression of other unlawful activity by the websites was not a reason to refuse relief.
5. The injunction was proportionate. Blocking would be an effective means of reducing infringement, particularly given the elusive and persistent conduct of those behind the websites. The order contained conventional safeguards, including notification requirements, permission to apply, a sunset clause and a cross-undertaking in damages. It was also agreed and capable of implementation by the respondents.