Royal Albert Hall seat holders lose £500,000 damages bid

Royal Albert Hall’s operator, “illegal” accusing the rights of the right to deprive the rights of the three -seat owners, £ 500,000 for temporary damages lost the offer of the Supreme Court.

Complainants say that they are widely excluded from the rules provided by the company of the Hall of Art and Sciences, known as the Royal Albert Hall (Rah).

At the beginning of this month, for men, lawyers asked a judge to make a measure decision to prevent them from extinguishing them from other performances and to prevent the company from restricting their access beyond the conditions of law.

Judge Sir Anthony Mann decided that the declaration would be “useless”.

Arthur George has 12 chairs in two separate boxes, and William and Alexander Stocks have four seats in a box.

They asked the judge to judge in favor of the trial and to give a temporary payment of £ 500,000 against the Rah for Rah.

In a written decision on Tuesday, the judge rejected the offer and said: “The search for the declaration seems potentially useless.

He continued: “When any statement is right in any statement, all the problems and defenses related to any statement will be a matter for the judiciary.”

Sir Anthony added: “The date and effect of the subject should be meticulously entering to some extent that one attempt can provide, and an experiment is required to determine the validity of this defense.

He continued: “The situation, the measure of damage and a temporary prize is not right to take into account the question.”

David Sawtell, representing Mr. George and Stockors at the beginning of this month at the beginning of this month, said that the case was not a “violation of the contract case” of the case, but instead was about the use of the property of the property.

“We say, if you take and use someone else’s property, you are obliged to compensate for the owner of the property for this use.”

Simon Taube KC said that men who have been a member of the company since 2008 did not vote against the implementation until the annual general meeting of 2023 since 2008.

“The background of the claim is that in recent years, the plaintiff’s relations with the company worsening because of the complaints of the plaintiffs on various financial issues.”