Outer House finds Dundee pub manager infringed SPFL copyright by showing unauthorised match feeds

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSOH 108
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lord Lake

Lord Lake found that Christopher Airlie, owner and designated premises manager of the Troll Inn, had authorised a barmaid to show feeds from Dundee United TV and Celtic TV in November 2025. He rejected Airlie’s contention that customers may instead have cast the matches from mobile phones to the televisions. The court held that interdict against future infringement was justified, although the case was put out By Order before a final interlocutor because of a drafting issue concerning one of the copyrighted works.

Mah, instructed by Burness Paull LLP, appeared for the SPFL. Airlie appeared as a party.

Club channels shown in pub

The SPFL sought interdict against Airlie in respect of copyright in graphics incorporated into video transmissions of league matches. It alleged infringement on 9 November 2025, when feeds featuring those graphics were shown on televisions at the Troll Inn and thereby communicated to the public for the purposes of section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Airlie did not admit either the SPFL’s ownership of the copyright or that the relevant footage had been shown. His position was that, if matches appeared on the screens, a customer may have cast or mirrored them from a mobile phone without staff noticing.

Andrew Sinclair, the SPFL’s head of partnerships, explained that some matches were broadcast by Sky while others were filmed on the league’s behalf and supplied to member clubs for use on subscription club channels. Media licence agreements prevented commercial use and subscriber agreements restricted the content to residential use.

Overseas services were subject to geo-blocking preventing access from the UK and Ireland. Mr Sinclair explained that users could attempt to circumvent those restrictions using virtual private networks, while IPTV services could also unlawfully “scrape” feeds from legitimate broadcasts. Neither of the matches later observed in the Troll Inn was lawfully available in the UK through satellite or cable television, pay-per-view or the relevant club channels.

Lord Lake accepted evidence that copyright in the graphics had passed to the SPFL from the suppliers commissioned to create them and held that the graphics were protected artistic works. An inquiry agent, Mr McLean, visited the pub on 9 November. He said that shortly after he entered, a television which had been switched on was turned off by the barmaid, to the annoyance of customers, many of whom then took out mobile phones.

Later, after Dundee v Rangers had finished and around 30 people were in the pub, two screens were turned on. One showed Hearts v Dundee United through what Mr McLean identified as Dundee United TV, while another showed Celtic v Kilmarnock through Celtic TV. He also observed an IPTV menu and saw the barmaid looking from a room behind the bar towards the televisions while the menus changed. Lord Lake found both SPFL witnesses credible and reliable.

Customer-casting explanation rejected

Airlie accepted that he was the Troll Inn’s designated premises manager and licence holder and was responsible for its day-to-day operation, but he was not present on the date in question. He maintained that staff could operate only free-to-view channels and suggested that a customer could easily have controlled a television using a mobile phone, although he could not explain how that would have been done.

Airlie said CCTV equipment had been operating at the pub. The SPFL’s solicitors contacted him 15 days after the inspection, but he did not retain the footage because, he said, he thought the letter was a joke. Lord Lake rejected his evidence that the televisions could display only free-to-view channels. He also regarded it as significant that Airlie had not called the barmaid as a witness or preserved the CCTV.

Airlie had previously been the subject of copyright proceedings brought by Sky concerning football shown at the same pub, with decree granted against him in March 2024. Lord Lake said that, having previously been taken to court, it was “unbelievable” that Airlie thought a further threat of proceedings could simply be ignored.

If his defence was that a customer had cast the matches, the court would also have expected evidence showing at least that this was technically possible using the equipment installed. Instead, Airlie had advanced little more than “a hypothesis or suggestion” unsupported by evidence.

On the balance of probabilities, Lord Lake found that the barmaid had selected the channels. The reaction of customers when the first television was switched off suggested that they were not controlling it, while the barmaid’s movements when the IPTV menus appeared supported the conclusion that she was operating the system.

Authorisation required an active step

The remaining question was whether Airlie himself could be treated as having authorised the infringement. Lord Lake noted that, as designated premises manager, Airlie accepted that he had day-to-day control of the pub and responsibility for instructing staff. There had also been an earlier incident in June 2024 involving infringement of the SPFL’s copyright, following which Airlie had undertaken that there would be no further infringement.

The judge considered that this demonstrated Airlie’s awareness of the issue and his acceptance of an obligation to prevent recurrence. Given his control over staff and knowledge of the previous infringement, Lord Lake inferred from the further incident in November 2025 that he had authorised the barmaid’s actions.

He also took account of Airlie’s statement that he and staff knew when someone reporting on them had entered because a stranger would order a juice or half pint. Taken with evidence that the television was switched off when Mr McLean entered, this suggested a response designed to conceal what was happening and that the barmaid had been instructed accordingly.

Lord Lake nevertheless rejected the SPFL’s broader argument that Airlie would necessarily have authorised infringement even if a customer had cast a match from a phone to the television. The earlier Sky Ltd v Airlie litigation involved different facts, including permission for computer monitors to be brought into the pub and plugged in to show matches. In the present case there was insufficient evidence about how casting or mirroring could have been carried out.

Lord Lake said that merely failing to disable a television from accepting a cast signal was not itself authorisation. Referring to authority that authorisation involved granting a right to carry out the relevant act, expressly or by implication, he said some “active step” was still required. “Failing to prevent something” could not, on the evidence before him, simply be equated with authorising it.

The court nevertheless found that the actual circumstances were different: the barmaid had selected the infringing feeds and Airlie had authorised her conduct. Lord Lake therefore concluded that the SPFL had established infringement of its copyright. Given the earlier undertaking followed by further infringement, it was reasonable to fear recurrence and interdict was justified.

The final terms of the order were left for a By Order hearing because Lord Lake identified a drafting problem relating to one of the appendices containing the copyrighted graphics.