EUPillar Television Autonomica Valenciana S.A. v Imagina Contenidos [2013] EWHC 160 (Ch)

Summary

The claimant, TVV, was a public-owned Spanish broadcaster; the defendant, Imagina, was in the business of acquiring and managing broadcasting rights. There were parallel court proceedings in Span and England. Both sets of proceedings were in respect of a sub-licensing agreement in relation to FIA Formula One World Championship. The Agreement incorporated an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. But then Spanish court have exclusive jurisdiction to settle disputes initiated by Imgaina. On 19th Sept 2010, Imagina brought court proceedings in Spain for the payment of licensing fees due under the agreement. On 9th March 2012, “TVV terminated the Agreement on the ground that Imagina’s grant of a sub-licence to Antena 3 in place of La Sexta was a repudiatory breach of the Agreement which TVV accepted (“the Antena 3 Issue”)” [21] TVV wanted to introduce the Antena issue in the Spanish proceedings. Imagina objected submitting that the English court had exclusive jurisdiction over the Antena 3 issue. TVV commenced the English proceedings on 14th June 2012. The claimant was seeking declaration that termination was valid, and it was also seeking damages for breach of the agreement. Imagina requested a stay of the English proceedings. The English court refused the application, and noted: “66 […] if there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments, that risk has been created by Imagina’s stance in refusing to agree to the Antena 3 Issue being tried in Spain. It does not lie in the mouth of the party who has created a risk of irreconcilable judgments by refusing to agree to all claims being tried together to say that the other party’s claim should be stayed as a result. When I put this to counsel for Imagina, he argued that the risk of irreconcilability had been created by TVV by its attempts to introduce the Antena 3 Issue into the Spanish Proceedings. That argument is completely untenable. As I have said, introduction of the Antena 3 Issue into the Spanish Proceedings would have avoided any risk of irreconcilable judgments. 67 It seems to me that, in reality, what Imagina is trying to do is to achieve a tactical advantage by obtaining a judgment from the Spanish Court before this Court can pronounce upon the validity of TVV’s termination of the Agreement. As counsel for Imagina was forced to accept, as a matter of logic, Imagina’s insistence that the Antena 3 Issue be determined in the English Proceedings would suggest that the Spanish Proceedings should be stayed until this Court has given judgment, because only then will the Spanish Court know whether or not the Agreement was terminated on 9 March 2012 and hence whether TVV is obliged to pay invoices issued by Imagina after that date. But when TVV requested such a stay, Imagina opposed it. Counsel for Imagina informed me that Imagina remained opposed to such a stay even if, as appears likely, there will have to be a re-trial in Spain. 68 […] whatever might have been the position if it had appeared likely that the Spanish Court would give its judgment soon, that is not the case. On the contrary, it appears likely that there will have to be a re-trial. Thus the effect of granting a stay would be to delay the progress of the English Proceedings for an unknown and potentially significant period even though the Antena 3 Issue can only be determined in those proceedings.” [66-68].