“the notices … avoid judicial scrutiny of the underlying claims on which the Norwich Pharmacal orders were based which, despite the purported discontinuance, are (or were) being pressed ahead in correspondence against many other individuals.”

“Mr Ludbrook’s [Media CAT’s barrister] instructions were that they were “in storage” and not readily available. If true, it is extraordinary. A party who keeps key documents which are cited in the Particulars of Claim in storage is not a party anxious to progress their claim in court.”

“Media CAT and ACS:Law have a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny of the cause of action because in parallel to the 26 [one of the 27 was previously settled] court cases, a wholesale letter writing campaign is being conducted from which revenues are being generated. This letter writing exercise is founded on the threat of legal proceedings such as the claims before this court.”

“ACS:Law’s interest is specifically mentioned … because of course they receive 65% of the revenues from the letter writing exercise. In fact Media CAT’s financial interest is actually much less than that of ACS:Law. Whether it was intended to or not, I cannot imagine a system better designed to create disincentives to test the issues in court. Why take cases to court and test the assertions when one can just write more letters and collect payments from a proportion of the recipients?”

“The GCB episode shows that Mr Crossley’s client had every intention of doing precisely that and that ACS:Law were perfectly well aware of it. 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.”

“We are pleased with the outcome for our clients in these cases. It was important for all the Defendants in these matters that discontinuance was properly obtained so no collateral advantage could be obtained against them by anyone not a party to these proceeding.

The Judgment highlights a number of legal and technical difficulties with these cases which we had advised our clients of throughout. We expect there to be another hearing to deal with legal costs and what proportion, if any, have to be paid directly by ACS: Law.

We are dealing with cases where consumers have explained how they cannot possibly have uploaded or downloaded copyright protected material, but they are still pursued. The legal basis for the claims made against these alleged file sharers involves complex legal and technical principles. These are extremely difficult for a lay person to understand and can mean an innocent person is being pursued.

It can be incredibly upsetting for people to receive these letters and they may well have a claim in harassment, so I am urging them to come forward."