Pub boss found in contempt of court for breach of interdict after screening live football match on Sky Sports

A judge in the Court of Session ruled that Robert Stewart, premises manager of The Village Inn in Edinburgh, wilfully breached the court’s previous order after Sky had obtained interdict against him for breach of copyright.

Perpetual interdict

Lady Wolffe heard that the petitioners previously brought interdict proceedings against the respondent and by interlocutor dated 7 June 2016, the court granted decree for perpetual interdict from infringing the petitioners’ works by showing broadcasts of football matches without any agreement permitting him to do so.

The date of the infringing broadcast that formed the basis of the interdict proceedings was 17 January 2016, when the respondent was the licensee or manager of the licensed premises on Inglis Green Road, and a copy interlocutor was served by messengers-at-arms on an individual within the pub on 23 June 2016.

However, the petitioners brought a further petition and complaint for breach of the perpetual interdict, alleging that the respondent showed (or permitted to be shown) a further football match in the premises, namely Aberdeen versus Rangers, which had been broadcast live on Sky Sports channel 5 on 25 September 2016.

In his answers the respondent “vehemently” denied broadcast of the football match, but in his witness statement he stated that he was not present in the premises on the day in question and he relied on a contract with Scotsport Sat Limited for provision of the football matches shown.

The petitioners’ position was that they had not entered into any agreement with Scotsport to provide access to their football matches, and that any agreement between the respondent and Scotsport did not entitle him to show Sky football on the televisions in the premises.

‘Satisfactory explanation’

Mr Stewart, who appeared as a party litigant, explained that his sister, Sharon Stewart, was due to take over running the premises in October 2016, but she had already taken over in a practical sense by the beginning of the third week of September and he had been training her in various matters, including dealing with contracts with Scotsport.

He claimed that there was only one box or device in the premises for showing games – a Scotsport box – which screened live matches from European broadcasters and was “incapable” of showing Sky broadcasts.

His sister told the court that she was working in the premises on the day in question and that the premises had a commercial contract with Scotsport “to show alternative games”, but she also denied showing football matched on 25 September and suggested that there were only ten people in the premises so she would not have risked showing “illegal broadcasts to that amount of customers”.

The court also heard evidence from two former police officers working as inquiry agents for the broadcaster, David Mackie and David Crookston, who attended the premises on the date in question and sat at the bar, where they had a “perfect view” of a television which was showing the match.

Mr Mackie identified the works shown as the works of Sky, including the broadcaster’s logo, the “trophy wipe” used to transition to replays and an advert for an upcoming match, as well as recognising studio pundits Neil McCann and Alex McLeish and the voices of commentators Ian Crocker and Andy Walker.

Mr Crookston identified the same features as his colleague, as well as identifying the advertisers shown during the broadcast, and he rejected a suggestion that the match was being broadcast via a European or other foreign channel – Mr Mackie having also said he was in “no doubt” that it was a Sky Sports broadcast.

Counsel for the petitioners, Usman Tariq, invited the court to hold that the respondent had communicated the works referred to in the summons and in doing so had breached the perpetual interdict.

He also argued that the respondent, as the designated premises manager responsible for the day to day running of the premises, was in contempt of court because he knew of the perpetual interdict but took no steps to comply with the court’s order and failed to provide a “satisfactory explanation and excuse”.

Contempt of court

The judge said she found the evidence of Mr Stewart and Ms Stewart to be “wholly lacking in credibility”, while the petitioner’s witnesses were “particularly compelling”.

In a written opinion, Lady Wolffe said: “Having regard to all of this evidence, I find it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the football game broadcast in the premises on 25 September 2016 was a Sky match and one containing those elements of the Works spoken to by Mr Mackie and Mr Crookston. There is, accordingly, breach of the Perpetual Interdict.”

As to whether the breach constituted a contempt of court, the test was whether there was a wilful breach of the perpetual interdict in the sense that it was not accidental, and whether there was a satisfactory explanation.

The judge found that the respondent’s breach of interdict was wilful.

Lady Wolffe said: “In my view, the respondent was fully aware of the fact that any further use of the Scotsport device to show live broadcasts of football matches in the UK entailed taking a risk of further breaching Sky’s rights in the Works, in disregard of the Perpetual Interdict. He took no steps to avert that risk or to ensure that if the device were used for the broadcast of live football matches that it would be done in such a manner as to obtemper the Perpetual Interdict. I find it established beyond reasonable doubt that this was a wilful breach of the court’s earlier order and constitutes a contempt of court.”

The case was put out By Order to consider the appropriate disposal.