Royal Albert Hall sued by ticket holders ‘deprived' of seats

Telegraph

6 days ago

Three Royal Albert Hall seat holders are suing it for more than £500,000 in damages at the High Court over allegations it 'unlawfully' deprived them of their rights to their seats.
Arthur George, who owns 12 seats in two separate boxes, and William and Alexander Stockler, who together own four seats in one box, say they have been excluded from more performances than the rules allow by the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences, commonly known as the Royal Albert Hall (RAH).
Lawyers for the men are asking a judge to declare that the practice of excluding them from other performances is unlawful, and to grant an injunction to stop the corporation from restricting their access beyond the terms of the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966.
They told the High Court on Friday that seat holders have a 'proprietary right to use their seats, or to otherwise sell or give away their tickets '.
The men are asking a judge to rule in their favour without a trial and award an interim payment of £500,000 in damages, ahead of the full amount being decided.
The corporation is opposing the application, with its lawyers stating the case should proceed to trial.
They told a hearing in London the body has excluded members on other occasions, but this has been approved by members by way of a document titled Memorandum and Guidelines.
David Satwell, representing Mr George and the Stocklers, told the court on Friday: 'This isn't a breach of contract case, we say this is a wrongful use of someone else's property.
'We say, if you take someone else's property and use it, you are liable to compensate the property owner for that use.
'One of the questions is, 'How would those claimants have used their seats?'
'Would they have gone there, would they have sold them, or would they have not used them at all?
'What a property owner does with their property is a matter for them.'
He added: 'If seats have been taken away wrongly, we say you would then have to consider what the value of those seats would have been.'
In written submissions, Mr Satwell said: 'It is not disputed by the parties that the corporation has exceeded its power... by granting more exclusive lets than it is permitted to do under that provision, that it has been doing so for a number of years, and that it intends to do so into the future.
'In 2008, the corporation acknowledged to the members that it had, for several years, been exceeding its entitlement... to treat events as exclusive lets.'
In written submissions for the corporation, Simon Taube KC said: 'The claimants, who have each been members of the corporation since before 2008, appear not to have voted against the Memorandum and Guidelines until the 2023 AGM.'
He added: 'The background to the claim is that in recent years the claimants' relations with the corporation have deteriorated because of the claimants' complaints about various financial matters.'
Mr Taube also said: 'The corporation's case, in very brief outline, is that even if the claimants can identify a theoretical interference with their rights, it does not damage the claimants as members and, in any case, the corporation has a defence based on the claimants' consent to or acquiescence in the granting of additional exclusives.'
The hearing before Sir Anthony Mann is due to conclude on Friday.