sport

Free-to-air TV in the UK: more events may be protected

A change in government following the UK general election scheduled for this May could result in an increase in the number of UK sporting events whose rights are reserved for free-to-air television. Although such a move would prove immensely frustrating for any affected sporting bodies, there may be a reluctance to take legal action following recent unsuccessful challenges before the European courts. Moreover, for rival pay-tv broadcasters BT and Sky, a reduction in available sports rights means the removal of potentially significant opportunities to compete - opportunities they would vehemently defend. This article outlines the relevant legal framework, discusses the likely future changes and examines how a potential challenge may play out.

Landmark judgment in Vidal-Hall et al v Google upheld

The Court of Appeal has upheld Justice Tugendhat's landmark judgment in Vidal-Hall et al v Google, which memorably classified the misuse of private information as a tort. The Court has also held that claimants may recover damages under the Data Protection Act 1998 for non-material loss.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd: the court considers serious irregularity in arbitral proceedings

The Arbitration Act 1996 gives the court powers to correct serious failures to comply with the "due process" of arbitral proceedings.  Successful challenges are rare, but a recent case in the High Court,The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd [2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC) and [2015] EWHC 311 (TCC), shows they are not impossible. 

Anti-suit injunction can be used to prevent creditor pursing proceedings in another jurisdiction to gain an unjustifiable priority in liquidation

In Stichting Shell Pensioenfonds v Krys and another (British Virgin Islands) [2014] UKPC 41, the Privy Council considered the question of whether, when a company is being wound up in the jurisdiction where it is incorporated, an anti-suit injunction should be issued to prevent a creditor from pursuing proceedings in another jurisdiction which are calculated to give them an unjustifiable priority.