[2025] UKUT 280 (LC)

That being the case I do not need to say very much about grounds 1 and 4. It is certainly the case that the restriction of sharing rights to those now defined as Code rights would be contrary to the policy of the Code; there has been no change of policy which requires sharing rights to be restricted as the respondent argues. And the differential treatment of Category A and Category B sharers is certainly strange, although that arose from the respondent’s agreement that the wider rights should be granted in respect of the Category A sharers; I imagine that if the FTT had had to decide about both Categories it might well have made the same decision about both since whichever of the two available errors the FTT made it would apply to both categories of sharers alike.

Neither ground 1 nor ground 4 would have been sufficient alone for success in the appeal, but both are consistent with the success in the appeal on grounds 2, 3 and 5.