Case No. CO-2850-2005

35.The decision was understood by the claimants to amount to a ban on “all advertising for North Cyprus” (Addleshaw Goddard 23rd March 2005). Contrary to Mr Allen’s submission that the terms of TfL’s response, by letter dated 13th April 2005, was driven more by the claimants’ contention than its own intentions, I am satisfied that the response reflects the position which was then held by the defendant.“TfL does not accept that its decision to ban all advertising for North Cyprus on the basis that it is likely to cause widespread or serious offence is irrational and/or wholly unreasonable.TfL has not banned all such advertising. It has decided it will not accept advertising from the proxies of a body that is in international law (and as accepted by the United Kingdom) in illegal occupation of a part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus. It would accept advertising from the Tourist Board of the Republic of Cyprus in relation to any part of Cyprus, but not from a body which is seeking to act on behalf of an illegal government”.36.Addleshaw Goddard sought clarification on the point in a letter dated 15th April 2005, asking whether “the only advertising for North Cyprus that TfL would accept from any source would be from the Tourist Board of the Republic of Cyprus”, but it was not until oral argument developed that a departure from the apparent position was suggested. Mr Allen submitted that “there is not a total ban”, “nor should the defendant’s decision be interpreted as a total ban on advertising holidays in North Cyprus”. He stated whether, for example, an independent English-owned travel agent wishing to advertise tourism in North Cyprus would be accepted was an open question.37.If now an open question, contemporary exchanges about the decision are not clear. Mr Hendy of TfL was asked by an email dated 5th March 2005 from the London Turkish Gazette:“… Is this a total ban on all advertising for North Cyprus as a holiday destination or just from NCTB? Would you consider advertising for North Cyprus from other companies?”Mr Hendy responded by letter dated 5th April 2005 to point out that the decision was to be reconsidered, but referring to the decision as being “… to refuse to allow further advertising campaigns for holidays in Northern Cyprus”. It is not clear whether the reference to “all advertising campaigns” included all or only a campaign by TRNC. Or, for that matter, any advertising campaign in which it could be seen that TRNC was involved or connected.38.The extent of the ban received further attention when the defendant commented on the joinder of the second claimant as a party. Addleshaw Goddard replied:“You express surprise that PFTC is a claimant. Mr Hendy’s letter of 9th February at least implicitly and Mr Farmiloe’s letter of 13th April explicitly made it clear that TfL banned all advertising for North Cyprus (save that from the Tourist Board of the Republic of Cyprus). Should TfL have wished to clarify its position it would have responded to the second paragraph of our letter of 15th April. In addition it should have been clear to TfL that banning advertising by NCTC would affect others with a commercial interest in North Cyprus – see our letter of 30th March”.39.The first claimant’s joinder as a party should not have given rise to surprise. It was a contracting party to the agreement which gave rise to the November 2004 campaign. It was a party, ready and willing to enter into a contract with the defendant’s agent, Viacom, who was also ready and willing to contract with the first claimant until prevented from doing so by the ban.40.The claimants’ detailed statement of grounds contended at paragraph 30 that the defendant was under a duty to consult with travel companies operating in TRNC. This contention and subsequent correspondence led to the defendant writing to “… those United Kingdom operators listed within NCTC’s website … inviting representations upon TfL’s decision” (see Mr Hendy’s witness statement paragraph 92). The letters referred to:(1) TfL’s opinion that the advertising campaign infringed TfL’s advertising policy because “by referring to North Cyprus and by containing a link to NCTC’s website contained images/messages that relate to matters of public controversy and sensitivity” and therefore, in TfL’s opinion, infringed the policy.“The North Cyprus situation being clearly a matter of public controversy and sensitivity”.(2) TfL considering “… that it would be inappropriate to carry such advertisements taking into account the concerns highlighted within the “Travel Advice” section of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office website”.41.It is clear that the second claimant’s case for being joined depends upon whether TfL’s decision extends so as to prevent it, either from benefiting from the first claimant’s advertising of North Cyprus as a holiday destination by its inclusion on the website list, or from advertising themselves (see Addleshaw Goddard’s letter dated 24th June 2005). No argument has been advanced against the claim that its interest, in being on the website, has been affected by the ban.42.I am bound to say that if, as Mr Allen indicated, it is an open question whether any person other than the claimants could advertise, I can see no reason why the request would not be refused on the ground of TfL’s concerns over the “Travel Advice” from the FCO and/or the same reasoning which has been applied to the second claimant’s case, namely that it has to be regarded as “parasitic on the interest of TRNC” (see paragraph 56 below).