Judge Closes Book On ACS:Law File-Sharing Cases
All cases against file-sharers bought by ACS:Law have been dismissed – but will Andrew Crossley be fined?
The Patents County Court has officially dismissed allegations of illegal file-sharing brought by ACS:Law against 26 defendants.
Judge Birss had initially refused to dismiss the cases – after ACS:Law solicitor Andrew Crossley moved to drop the file-sharing charges on behalf of his client Media C.A.T. – suggesting that the law firm was attempting to “avoid judicial scrutiny”. However, the judge has finally decided to close the book on this bizarre episode.
“There’s simply no point in keeping these proceedings artificially alive any more,” said Guy Tritton, a barrister from Ralli Solicitors, which is acting on behalf of the accused.
Speculative invoicing
ACS:Law first came into the spotlight last year, after more than 150 people contacted the consumer magazine Which?, claiming to have been wrongly targeted in a crackdown on illegal file-sharing. It emerged that ACS:Law had sent out thousands of letters, accusing recipients of illegally sharing copyright material.
Crossly (pictured), who owns ACS:Law, took eight unnamed and unrepresented defendants to court in late November 2010, in the hope of getting an easy default judgement. However, Judge Birss firmly rejected the cases, on the grounds that Media C.A.T. was not the rights holder of the works in question.
Despite this, ACS:Law and Media C.A.T. continued to pursue the issue, sending out letters in January claiming that ACS:Law was no longer acting on behalf of Media C.A.T., and that further payments should be made to a company called GCB Limited.
The letters soon raised suspicion, and just a few weeks later both ACS:Law and Media C.A.T. shut up shop. “It is very difficult not to draw the inference that this was nothing more than a last ditch attempt to make some money from the letter writing exercise,” said Judge Birss at the time.
Will Crossley be punished?
The question remains as to whether Crossley and other individuals involved will be fined for the costs incurred by those accused. Ralli Solicitors is reportedly seeking £90,000. However, Crossley’s barrister Paul Parker said his client shouldn’t be liable for the costs, claiming that Crossley had spent £750,000 on pursuing alleged online pirates.
“ACS:Law was not a limited company in any sense. Mr Crossley will remain entirely and personally liable for all the actions of his firm,” said James Bench of BeingThreatened, a blog which has fought the two companies.
It has been suggested that the court may also demand wasted costs. “If ever there was a case with conduct out of the norm it was this one,” said Judge Birss.
