
Royal Albert Hall seat holders seek £500k in High Court over exclusion from concerts
They allege the institution has "unlawfully" deprived them of their rights to their seats.
Arthur George, who holds 12 seats across two separate boxes, and William and Alexander Stockler, owners of four seats in a single box, claim the Corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences – commonly known as the Royal Albert Hall (RAH) – has excluded them from more performances than its rules permit.
Their legal representatives are now asking a judge to declare the exclusion practice unlawful.
They are also seeking an injunction to prevent the corporation from restricting access beyond the terms stipulated in 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 trio 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 opposes the application, with its lawyers saying the case should proceed to trial.
They told a hearing in London that the body had excluded members on other occasions, but this was 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.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's visit to Scotland will cost millions of dollars, report says
Donald Trump 's five-day golf trip to Scotland is estimated to cost US taxpayers nearly $10 million. The visit, officially designated as a 'work trip,' includes stops at his golf courses and the opening of a new course near Aberdeen. Estimated expenses cover Secret Service overtime, the operating costs of Air Force One and Marine One, and the transportation of vehicles. Trump is also scheduled to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Scotland's First Minister John Swinney. The trip is expected to incur substantial costs for Scottish taxpayers due to a major police operation and anticipated protests.


The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Judge dismisses Trump officials' lawsuit over Chicago sanctuary policies
A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the northern district of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson said he was pleased with the decision and the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's welcoming city ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The city cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. Governor JB Pritzker welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post: 'Illinois just beat the Trump administration in federal court.' The justice department and the Department of Homeland Security and did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies seen as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, New York. It sued four New Jersey cities in May. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during Trump's first term in 2017. That same year, then governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party. There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Ice enforces US immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.


The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
From 60 Minutes to Colbert, it's been a dark time for CBS. But there's a ray of hope
The past few weeks have brought a torrent of bad news for those who care about CBS News – the home of the legendary Walter Cronkite and a great deal of investigative journalism over many decades. Most notably, the network's parent company, Paramount Global, capitulated to the Trump administration, unnecessarily – and wimpily – settling a lawsuit by paying $16m, purportedly for a future presidential library. Trump had sued over a story on 60 Minutes, the network's flagship program, claiming it was deceptively edited to favor his then-rival for the presidency, Kamala Harris. After the settlement was announced, Trump crowed that the network had 'defrauded the American people' and was desperate to settle; he also claimed that another $20m in advertising and programming was also coming his way. Days later, another troubling sign. The network decided to dump The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, the top-rated show on late-night television, whose host has been relentlessly critical of Trump. Network bosses claimed the move was financial, since the show was losing money. But it wasn't hard to connect the dots and see this as part of an all-out effort to appease the president. The Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren called for answers in a Variety op-ed, asking: 'Are we sure that this wasn't part of a wink-wink deal between the president and a giant corporation that needed something from his administration?' That 'something' is federal clearance for an $8bn merger between Paramount and another giant media corporation, Skydance. (The latter company is doing its kowtowing part, promising to 'evaluate any complaints of bias' at CBS News, appoint an ombudsman to keep watch, and ensure there are no diversity, equity and inclusion programs at Paramount. The proposed merger got approval on Thursday from the FCC, which means that it's essentially a done deal.) Colbert's on-air commentary on the settlement was brutal: 'This kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's 'big, fat bribe'.' Could it be a complete coincidence that The Late Show was canceled three days later? Amid all this, one positive development this week shone through like a wan blade of light. A new executive producer for 60 Minutes – the top editorial role – got the nod. To the relief of many there, Tanya Simon is no outsider who might have been tapped to make the show more Trump-friendly. Simon has deep roots at the revered program – a 25-year veteran of 60 Minutes, she is also the daughter of the late CBS correspondent Bob Simon. She has been the acting executive producer since the previous executive producer, Bill Owens, resigned under pressure, saying he felt he no longer had the full editorial independence he had always enjoyed. Her appointment, of course, doesn't mean no political pressure will be exerted from corporate bosses above her, who seem to be under Trump's sway. 'There is great fear about what comes next,' one CBS News staffer told CNN earlier this month. Simon's appointment offers at least a modest measure of reassurance. She 'understands what makes '60 minutes' tick,' said the news division's president, Tom Cibrowski, in a memo to staff. She's also the first woman, in the show's nearly six-decade history, to be at the helm. If the choice had been a right-leaning newcomer, it's a good bet that top quality talent like Scott Pelley – a former chief White House correspondent and a former anchor of the CBS Evening News – would have quickly headed for the door. As for the future of CBS, once admired enough to be dubbed the Tiffany Network, the outlook is mixed. 'I know that the C in CBS stands for Columbia, but … it ought to be called the Contradiction Broadcasting Network,' wrote Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch. That's always been true, he argued, given the bright journalistic legacy of Cronkite and Edward R Murrow along with some ugly chapters in the distant past. That includes the time when – under fire from the FBI director J Edgar Hoover in the late 1940s – the network demanded that all its employees sign a loyalty oath to the US government. When it comes to integrity, that history of contradiction is bad enough. Capitulation, though, is far worse. And given recent events, it's easy to make the case that CBS – or, more accurately, its parent company – deserves that acronym even more. Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture