Grounds for appeal
9. I can summarise the grounds advanced by Mr Price in support of Media’s appeal as follows:
Damages (1)The approach to damages on the ‘user principle’ was unreasonable and failed to take into account the multiple acts of infringement by Mr Bowen.
Flagrancy (2)The conclusion that the infringement was not flagrant was contrary to the authorities on this aspect of the law. (3)The award was not dissuasive, as required by art. 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC (“the Enforcement Directive”).
Costs (4)Bringing proceedings in other jurisdictions was Media’s right, particularly under EU law, and should have had no bearing on costs. The overriding objective was therefore wrongly applied to the order on costs. (5)The District Judge wrongly took into account an offer of settlement of £250 by Mr Bowen. (6)The District Judge asked the parties about Part 36 Offers and without prejudice offers before giving his judgment.