The High Court struck out an application by Amalgamated Racing Limited and Racing UK Limited to have bookmaker John Patton attached and committed for alleged contempt of court. Mr Justice Tony O’Connor said he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Patton had breached or continued to breach earlier orders or undertakings.
The application arose from alleged copyright infringements at betting shops in Donegal town and Manorhamilton. The companies relied on affidavits from Gary Crowe, who said he saw a race carrying the Racing UK logo on a screen in Donegal town on 8 February 2017, and Mr Walsh, who said he saw the logo in the Manorhamilton shop on 21 April 2017.
At the hearing, Patton raised questions about the accounts. He disputed the position of the racing coverage shown in the Donegal photographs and said the race meeting identified in Crowe’s first affidavit was inconsistent with the plaintiffs’ rights at the time. The court also heard that Patton was not in the Donegal shop on 8 February; Walsh had taken no photographs or cited corroborating evidence; and Patton could not have turned off the Manorhamilton screen as alleged because of his position in the office. Patton’s other three shops were showing racing supplied by SIS, the judgment said.
The judge said these issues raised reasonable doubt about whether Patton had caused, arranged or allowed infringement on either date. He also noted that the plaintiffs and Patton accepted that either €10,000 or €15,000 remained due under settlement terms dated 10 November 2014. The judgment records that Patton had hoped to pay the sum, had closed one betting shop and had suffered a stroke the previous year. The plaintiffs had enforcement options concerning any breach of the settlement apart from contempt proceedings.
The judge described committal for civil contempt as a last resort and said the application imposed significant evidential burdens. He did not determine Patton’s allegation that the plaintiffs were acting vindictively or seeking to influence other bookmakers, noting that the plaintiffs had not had an opportunity to address it. He said he did not find that the plaintiffs had sought to mislead the court or necessarily acted in bad faith, but expressed concern about attention to detail and motivation in bringing the application.
The order was to strike out the application for attachment and committal. The judgment did not determine the outstanding settlement amount or make a finding that no infringement had occurred.