Family-run betting shop chain sued over sports broadcast copyright infringement

High court reporters

A media company which provides horse racing and other sports broadcasts to betting shops is suing a father and daughter who run five bookmakers’ outlets.

Sis Media Ltd claims John and Laura Celine Patton, who run the AlphaBet chain of betting shops in Borris, Co Carlow, Tubbercurry, Co Sligo, Manorhamilton, Co Leitrim, Main Street, Donegal town, and Kilkee, Co Clare, are in breach of copyright by showing copyrighted broadcasts in their shops.

Sis Media provides live feed channels called Sis One and Sis Two along with other sporting event content to bookies.

It says that between 2009 and 2017, it provided its services to AlphaBet but terminated it due to the non-payment by John Patton of fees of nearly €40,000 which it says still remain outstanding.

When it was discovered that three AlphaBet shops were still showing Sis broadcasts, the Pattons were warned to stop doing so. In September last year, Sis also objected to the renewal of Mr Patton's bookies licence and gardaí said they would carry out enquiries.

On Monday, Paul Coughlan BL, for Sis Media, applied for and was granted permission to have proceedings against the Pattons dealt with in the High Court's fast track commercial division on Monday.

Mr Patton, representing himself and Laura, who he said is the holder of the bookies licence for the shops, told the court Sis had refused to give a subscription for the channels to his daughter. Sis effectively "refused to engage with my daughter and are effectively shutting us out of business".

He said when they offered to stop showing the Sis channels, Sis "came here with a whole fishing list" of other demands which they could not meet, including for GDPR reasons, he said.

Not only did they not have the money to pay for lawyers to represent them, they would not be able to pay for any damages or legal costs that might be awarded against them, he said.

Mr Justice Denis McDonald said the only matter before the court was whether the case should be admitted to the Commercial Court.

He said that under the court rules he was required to admit the case but urged the parties to try to resolve the matter. He adjourned it to next February.