ترينيداد وتوباغو

The defendant’s application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds that Trinidad and Tobago is forum non conveniens was refused.

The claimant sought declaratory relief as to its exclusive right to provide broadcasts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup within the United States of America (USA). However, the defendant sought a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that Trinidad and Tobago is forum non conveniens and that the USA is the more appropriate forum.

In May 2012, the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association (“TTFA”) signed a Rights Acquisition Agreement with Traffic Sport, in which TTFA sold their broadcasting rights to Traffic Sports. The governing law of the Rights Acquisition Agreement is New York. A Soccer License Agreement was executed in May 2015 between Traffic Sports and Telemundo. The governing law of the Soccer License Agreement is Florida. The claimant became aware that the TTFA appeared to transfer broadcast rights of the qualifying matches to Elite Soccer Agency (“Elite”).

The two main issues before the court were: (a) Was Trinidad and Tobago a forum non conveniens? and if not, (b) Is Telemundo entitled to injunctive relief?

TTFA was served and accepted service in Trinidad and Tobago. However, the Soccer License Agreement included a clause providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of Florida. The court held the view that the litigants were not the parties to the Soccer License Agreement (the parties were Traffic Sport and Telemundo), and as such, they were not bound to the exclusive jurisdiction clause.

In considering the prejudice to either party in granting or refusing the stay of proceedings, the court bore in mind that the games were scheduled to take place in Trinidad and Tobago. If the claim was to be heard in another jurisdiction, it would (a) render the enforceability of a decision against the defendant virtually impossible and (b) result in the claimant not obtaining injunctive relief. The application to stay the proceedings was therefore refused.

On the second issue of whether to grant injunctive relief to the claimant, the court took the position that the claimant presented a serious question to be tried due to their submission that the defendant disregarded their broadcasting rights by wrongfully attempting to sell those rights to a third party.

The court held the view that there would be a greater risk of injustice to the claimant if injunctive relief was not granted; the claimant was at risk of losing firstly the specific sum of 50,000 and 80,000 Trinidad and Tobago Dollars, which they would have received for the matches in question. There was also the risk of losing an unquantified sum in the loss of their reputation and loss of fan base to other competitors in the USA. Injunctive relief was granted for the matches to be aired March 24 and 28, 2017. With regards to the qualifying matches in 2020, the court’s view was that there was a great likelihood that the substantive claim would be determined by then.

Cases referred to (non-exhaustive):

Spiliade Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1978] 1 AC 460

Donohue v. Armco Inc. and Others [2002] 1 All ER