Racing Partnership Ltd & Ors v Done Brothers Ltd: Reinforcing Breach of Confidence in Raceday Data Management

Introduction

In the High Court of England and Wales, Chancery Division, the case of The Racing Partnership Ltd & Ors v. Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd & Ors ([2019] EWHC 1156 (Ch)) addressed significant issues surrounding the management and distribution of horseracing data. Central to the dispute were allegations that Sports Information Services Ltd ("SIS") engaged in unlawful practices by infringing copyright, sui generis database rights, and breach of contract and confidence in relation to Raceday Data from Arena Racecourses. The claimants, including The Racing Partnership Limited ("TRP"), sought damages and injunctions to protect their exclusive rights in the data.

This commentary elucidates the court's judgment, analyzing the legal principles applied, precedents cited, and the broader implications for data management and commercial competition within the horseracing industry.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by HHJ Russen QC, delivered a multifaceted judgment addressing multiple claims brought by the Racing Partnership Limited ("TRP") against SIS. The core findings were:

• The claim for conspiracy to injure through unlawful means failed.
• Direct claims alleging infringement of TRP's copyright in Betting Shows and sui generis database rights in the RDT Database were dismissed.
• The direct claim for breach of confidence regarding the misuse of Raceday Data by SIS was upheld.

The judgment underscored the importance of the obligation of confidence and clarified the nuances distinguishing breach of confidence from copyright or database rights infringement. The court also delved into the complexities of establishing tortious conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating knowledge of unlawfulness and intent to cause harm.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced key legal precedents to navigate the intricate issues of copyright, database rights, breach of confidence, and the tort of conspiracy. Notably:

• PCR Ltd v Dow Jones Telerate Ltd [1998] FSR 170: Considered the applicability of copyright in statistical information.
• Bookmakers' Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd v Wilf Gilbert (Staffordshire) Ltd [1994] FSR 723: Explored copyright in forecast dividends akin to Betting Shows.
• Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd [1969] RPC 41: Defined the elements of breach of confidence.
• Total Network SL [2008] AC 1174: Addressed whether criminal conduct could constitute unlawful means in conspiracy.
• OBG Ltd v Allen [2008] 1 AC 1: Further explored the scope of unlawful means in conspiracy, especially concerning commercial activities.
• Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture (No.2) [1980] 1 All ER 393: Discussed knowledge of unlawful means in conspiracy.
• Meretz Investments NV v ACP Ltd [2008] Ch 244: Highlighted the requirement of knowledge in conspiracy, considering both inducing breach of contract and conspiracy to injure.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to distinguishing between different forms of misconduct and their implications under English law.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning was methodical, dissecting each claim under the relevant legal frameworks:

• Copyright Infringement: The court evaluated whether the Betting Shows qualified as "literary works" under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Drawing analogies to cases like BAGS v Wilf Gilbert, the court concluded that individual Betting Shows did not exhibit sufficient originality to warrant copyright protection. Consequently, SIS could not be held liable for copyright infringement.
• Sui Generis Database Rights: Applying the Copyright in Databases Regulations 1999, TRP's claim that SIS infringed their database rights was scrutinized. The court found that SIS's actions did not amount to substantial extraction or re-utilization of the database, thereby dismissing the claim.
• Breach of Contract by the Tote: The court examined whether the Tote was contractually bound by the Arena Terms to restrict the dissemination of Raceday Data. It determined that there was no such contractual restriction, effectively ruling out breach of contract.
• Breach of Confidence: This was the linchpin of the judgment. The court assessed whether Raceday Data possessed the necessary quality of confidence, whether it was imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and whether there was unauthorized use to the detriment of the claimants. It concluded that SIS breached confidence by misusing Raceday Data acquired under the Tote's auspices.
• Tort of Conspiracy: The court deliberated on the elements required to establish a conspiracy to injure by unlawful means. It emphasized that unlawful means must be directly related to the harm intended and that knowledge of unlawfulness is essential. Given the complexities and SIS's bona fide belief in the legality of its actions, the conspiracy claim was unsuccessful.

Throughout the analysis, the court maintained a consistent focus on the principles of fairness, the integrity of commercial practices, and the protection of proprietary information.

Impact

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the management of proprietary data within the horseracing and broader sporting industries:

• Reinforcement of Breach of Confidence: The decision underscores the robustness of breach of confidence as a legal remedy for misappropriation of proprietary data, even in the absence of copyright or database rights protections.
• Clarification on Conspiracy Tort: By delineating the necessity of knowledge of unlawfulness and direct intention to harm, the court provides clearer boundaries for what constitutes actionable conspiracy, thereby influencing future litigation strategies.
• Encouragement of Fair Data Practices: Organizations are now more cognizant of the legal obligations surrounding the handling and distribution of sensitive data, prompting them to implement stricter compliance measures.
• Commercial Competition: Firms engaged in data-related services within competitive industries must navigate their rights and obligations meticulously to avoid unlawful practices that could lead to litigation.

Overall, the judgment emphasizes the legal system's role in safeguarding confidential information and maintaining equitable competition, thereby fostering a more transparent and legally compliant commercial environment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Breach of Confidence

Breach of confidence involves the unauthorized use or disclosure of confidential information entrusted to a party. For confidentiality to exist, the information must:

• Possess the necessary quality of confidence;
• Have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence;
• Be used without authorization to the detriment of the rights holder.

In this case, Raceday Data held commercial value and was protected under confidentiality agreements imposed by Arena Racecourses. SIS's unauthorized use of this data breached these confidentiality obligations.

2. Tort of Conspiracy

The tort of conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more parties to engage in unlawful conduct with the intent to cause harm. Key elements include:

• A combination or agreement between parties;
• Unlawful means utilized as part of the conspiracy;
• Intent to cause damage to the claimant;
• Resulting damage to the claimant.

The court highlighted that for a conspiracy claim to succeed, there must be knowledge that the means employed are unlawful, and a direct intention to cause harm. In this judgment, SIS did not sufficiently demonstrate knowledge of the unlawfulness of their actions, leading to the dismissal of the conspiracy claim.

3. Sui Generis Database Rights

Sui generis database rights protect the investment in obtaining, verifying, or presenting a database. For a right to subsist:

• The collection must involve a substantial investment;
• Extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of the database without authorization constitutes infringement.

The court found that SIS's use did not amount to such substantial extraction, negating the database rights infringement claim.

4. Copyright Protection

Copyright in the context of this case was questioned regarding the originality of Betting Shows. The court determined that the Betting Shows lacked sufficient originality and thus were not protected under copyright law, making the infringement claim untenable.

Conclusion