Friday, 11 April 2014

Costs: The Football Association Premier League Ltd v Berry and Another

Jane Lambert











In The Football Association Premier League Ltd v Berry and Another [2014] EWHC 726 (Ch) (13 March 2014) the claimant sought summary judgment in its claim for copyright infringement against the proprietor of  a watering hole almost opposite the Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts in Liverpool that is well known and well loved by counsel on the Northern Circuit and their instructing solicitors (see "City centre bar fined showing Premier League football could be forced to close" 14 March 2014 Liverpool Echo). The application was largely conceded and counsel for the parties agreed a minute of order which provided for injunctions, an inquiry or account of profits and costs on the standard basis. The only issue that was not agreed was the amount of an interim order for costs and that issue fell to be decided by Richard Spearman QC sitting as a judge of the High Court.

The transcript of the hearing before Mr Spearman does not give very many details of the action but the press report to which I referred above provides the following background information:
"Premier League bosses said their investigators had visited First National earlier in the season and seen TVs in the bar showing the Al Jazeera channel, which was recently rebranded beIN Sports.
They argued the channel had only bought rights to show games to viewers in the Middle East and North Africa, and so by showing it in the UK the law was being broken."
In his judgment the deputy judge noted that the claim was not "not for the entirety of the broadcasts, which are broadcasts of football matches, but is limited to claims for infringement of the copyrights in logos and graphics which appear as part of the broadcasts." However, he also said at paragraph [14]:
"it seems to me absolutely obvious that these rights are valuable and important rights. From the brief sight I have had of the relevant screenshots it is quite obvious that they convey useful and interesting information to viewers."
The defendant had argued that the claimant could expect only a few hundred pounds by way of damages and that this action was an example of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut. Her arguments were summarized by Mr Spearman as follows:
(a)   This was a claim against a single publican in respect of a very small number of broadcasts, 7 in all.
(b)   Only some of those broadcasts were the subject of the summary judgment application now conceded by the defendant.  
(c)   Licences would have been available from BSkyB for £1,230.18 plus VAT per month, which would have given him access to the entirety of BSkyB's premium sports content of which the logos and the graphic works the subject of the litigation were only a small part.
Mr Spearman was "very far from persuaded that the value of the claim will be in the measure of a few hundred pounds." A monthly licence fee from BSkyB would amount to £28,000 over the period during which the matches were shown.  Moreover, additional statutory damages had also been claimed.

At the hearing the defendant argued that the claim could and should have been brought in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") where recoverable costs are capped. His problem, however, was that he had raised that argument for the first time only a few days before the hearing. Moreover, his defence had been based on European and national competition law which was outside IPEC's jurisdiction, he had put the claimant to proof on subsistence, title and use and both sides had instructed leading and junior counsel in the litigation.  

Much more significant in the deputy judge's view than the amount of the recoverable damages was that this litigation was "part of a battle on a much wider front between publicans and the like in general and copyright owners such as the claimant in this case and BSkyB as to whether the claims of the copyright owners are untenable in light of European and competition law considerations."  Accordingly, it seemed to Mr Spearman that "the importance of the rights to the parties on both sides are very high and very clear, reflected not least by the fact that both sides in this litigation have used very well known and experienced leading and junior counsel."   That he considered "to be very relevant on the proportionality of this litigation and the costs incurred."

The claimant's costs of the applications were over £148.000 and it asked for an interim payment of £65,000. In United Airlines Inc. v United Airways Limited [2011] EWHC 2411 Mr Justice Vos had  said that he had to determine not the irreducible minimum that was likely to be awarded, but a reasonable estimate of what is likely to be awarded.  An interim payment of £65,000 had been ordered in the somewhat similar case of the Football Association Premier League v Luxton (see "Premier League live football: Pub landlord broke copyright law" 30 Jan 2014 BBC).  Although Mr Spearman did not place much reliance on what was said about other cases, the fact that Mr Justice Rose ordered an interim payment of £65,000 within 28 days gave him some comfort that an order of that sort was not wildly out of the appropriate league. Accordingly, Mr Spearman made an order for payment of the same interim amount in this case.

The awarding of costs generally and deciding the amount of interim payments are matters within a judge's discretion. Though I am a little puzzled at his finding that the damages likely to be awarded upon an inquiry will exceed £25,000 since the claimant would receive only a proportion - and I would have thought only a small proportion - of the licence fee paid to BSkyB for a whole month's sport I cannot see any obvious fault in the judge's exercise of his discretoion. Despite Woolf, Jackson and the launch of IPEC civil litigation in this country is still too damned expensive. It is imposing an intolerable burden on British business and something needs to be done about it.  Until something is done the lesson from this litigation seems to be that if you want to fight the football clubs make sure you get some proper funding to do so either from others in your trade or from an insurer (if insurance is available for a case like this) or some other third party.

It is important to note that intellectual property law exists not just for the benefit of intellectual asset owners - in this case the Premier League - but is intended to strike a balance between the interests of intellectual asset producers, competitors and consumers.  However that picture is complex because the public also has an interest in maintaining the viability of the clubs, investment in the sport and the convenience of watching football on television, According to the Echo Liverpool received £54,8 million from broadcasting and Everton £51.8 million last season. At least some of that money seems to find its way to schoolchildren.  For instance the Echo reported that Rainhill School received a grant of £300,000 to improve its football facilities.

After the World Cup Samuel Okoronkwo, Robert Griffiths QC and I together with one of our colleagues from Atlas Tax Chambers will hold a half day seminar in London on regulation of agents, competition, broadcasting, licensing and other issues relating to football. If you are interested in pre-registering call George on 0161 850 0080 or fill in my contact form.  You can also tweet me, write on my wall or send me a message through G+, Linkedin or Xing. We look forward to seeing you.

Further Reading
Jeremy Phillips "Costly copyright litigation? Blame the litigants" 18 March 2014 1709 Blog

Saturday, 5 April 2014

Creating a Northern Counterweight to London is good for the Nation

Salford Quays        Source Wikipedia

















On the 28 Oct 2013 The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce ("RSA") launched an independent commission known as the City Growth Commission is to investigate how England’s cities can become engines for growth (see the RSA press release Independent City Growth Commission launched by RSA  28 Oct 2013).

Chaired by the well-known economist Jim O'Neil the Commission will address the following questions:
  • "What are the key benefits – for the economy, investment, innovation, productivity and public finances – of shifting to a multi-polar growth model, in which our major cities are key players in the nations’ economy? 
  • What does the international evidence show about the role of cities in driving growth and catalysing innovation and what are the key success factors that we can learn from?
  • What is the relationship between public service reform and economic growth at city level? How can more effective demand management through public service reconfiguration and integration help to drive social and economic productivity and enable our cities to become financially sustainable?
  • How can decision making and responsibility be better aligned with the reality of local labour markets, so that employment support, childcare, skills policy, welfare strategy and economic development are integrated around the needs of local people and businesses?
  • How can growth in other English cities complement London’s economic success, and what should be the interrelationship between devolution, growth and reform strategies in London and in our other major cities?
  • What needs to change between Whitehall and our cities to make multi-polar growth a reality? What does the Centre need to do to enable this and what economic and revenue levers do cities require?
  • What are the practical, organisational, cultural and systemic barriers that stand in the way of a fundamental shift in economic power to our cities and how can these be overcome?"
The Commission will take evidence until this summer and then deliver its report in the autumn.

In "Prosperity Lives in the City" 30 Oct 2013 Bloomberg View, O'Neill wrote:
"More often than not, cities are the engine that powers economic growth. When a country’s cities succeed -- and I do mean cities, plural -- the economy is much more likely to prosper."
He also noted that although the British economy was beginning to pick up growth is not well balanced. The most conspicuous form of imbalance is regional in that there is an increasing dependence on London and the South East. O'Neill developed his ideas in an interview with Toby Helm of  The Observer 2 March 2014  "Cities chief Jim O'Neill's tip for a prosperous Britain: devolve to the north"  Stressing that the economic success of the capital was a good thing he suggested that the solution to the regional imbalance lay not in holding London's back but in making the other cities of the United Kingdom more like London. For instance, by improving transport links in the M62 corridor cities along its route could be welded into a single economic area. 

The BBC's economics correspondent Evan Davis took the idea a stage further in his article "The case for making Hebden Bridge the UK's second city" 10 March 2014 BBC website and his TV programme "Mind The Gap: London Vs The Rest" shown that same evening. Citing a World Bank conclusion that
"The large and growing academic literature suggests that doubling city size increases productivity by 3% to 8%"
Davis argued that if the population of Manchester could be quadrupled it would be between 6 and 16% richer than it is now. Now if Manchester were to quadruple in size it would occupy much of the space between Leeds and Liverpool. The components for such a conurbation already exists in the four contiguous metropolitan counties of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West and South Yorkshire. If those conurbations would only think of themselves as one we have our second city already with a green centre located somewhere around Hebden Bridge.

In his article Davis wrote:
"The suggestion that[Henden Bridge] is Britain's second city came from resident David Fletcher, who was active in the 80s saving the town's old mills and converting them to modern use.
His point is that Hebden Bridge is an inverted city with a greenbelt centre and suburbs called Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool.
His point was that the real second city of the UK is a trans-Pennine strip that extends the relatively short distance across northern England, joining the built-up areas that lie second, fourth and sixth in the UK ranking.
Certainly, Hebden Bridge has attracted a lot of professional couples who are split commuters, one heading towards Manchester and one towards Leeds each morning. It is a place that allows both those cities to be treated as next door.
And maybe therein lies some kind of answer to the critical mass of London. It's not a second city called Hebden Bridge, but a super-city that tries to turn the great cities of northern England into one large travel-to-work area.
It would require a lot of physical infrastructure to improve links between the different centres.
And there would doubtless be rivalry and tension. The fact that Manchester is at its centre may not delight those who enjoy the football rivalries that are well known in that neighbourhood.
But there is no need to combine the teams, or to combine the names.
There would simply be a need to build on the success the bigger cities of Britain have been enjoying in recent years."
Regrettably but perhaps predictably Davis and O'Neill's suggestions of integrating existing conurbations was taken literally and stimulated all sorts of unhelpful emotions including Trans-Pennine rivalries not to mention Cis-Pennine rivalries such as those subsisting between Liverpool and Manchester on one side and Bradford and Leeds on the other.

As I pointed out in "NESTA in Manchester" 3 Jan 2013 the Pennines are not a big deal. The coastal range that separates the San Fernando Valley from the city of Los Angeles is a much more formidable barrier but it does not prevent the people of Southern California from thinking of themselves, and functioning, as one metropolitan area.

It may be that this sort of regional thinking is beginning to take root at last. Something very similar to Davis's plan was canvassed by Haughton G, Deas I, Hincks S, 2014, "Making an impact: when agglomeration boosterism meets antiplanning rhetoric" Environment and Planning A 46(2) 265 – 270. It may also be manifesting itself in the ‘Destination Management Plan’ to turn the formerly derelict Manchester Ship Canal docklands into a cultural and sports complex to rival London's South Bank. This scheme has the support of Lancashire County Cricket Club, Manchester United Football Club as well as The Lowry, the Imperial War Museum North, the BBC, the University of Salford. Trafford MDC and Salford City Council. Certainly if the M62 corridor is to be an economic counterweight to London and the South East it needs a strong cultural base to attract and keep the professionals and business leaders who can make that happen.

As O'Neill is a prominent Manchester United supporter he might reasonably be expected to favour initiatives like Destination Management Plan.

Friday, 21 March 2014

Tax Relief on R & D and Inventions

Immediately after the Daresbury Business Breakfast on the 28 Feb 2014 Ian Rowland of Grant Thornton and Jack Stevenson-Hill of Marks & Clerk presented "Are you minimising your business costs by optimising tax relief on your R&D and inventions?" The presentation covered the Enterprise Investment Scheme ("EIS"), the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme ("SEIS"), Entrepreneurs' Relief, Research and Development Tax Relief and the Patent Box.

The discussion on the Patent Box was particularly timely as it is a year since it came into force. At a similar meeting last year I had asked a number of questions such as what happens to the tax relief if a patent is a revoked? Is all the tax clawed back or is the allowance disallowed from the date of revocation? This year the presenters were able to give me some answers and I was pleased to hear that the general view is that the tax allowed for the time the patent was in force will not be claimed back.

In the audience was an official from HM Revenue & Customs and although he made clear that he could and would say nothing that might bind his department he did not dissent from the speakers' view. After the presentation I got to talk to the official who told me that the Manchester Specialist Unit Large & Complex Business contains most of the Revenue's expertise on the patent box and other tax relief. He did not give me his name and though we exchanged business cards his card contains only the postal address of his unit (which is in Glasgow) and an email address which starts off with the word "randdmanchester". He also gave me to understand that his team look at issues on a case by case basis and are interested in outcomes.

Ian and Jack sent me a copy of their slides which is very interesting and comprehensive. I would be happy to put them on Slideshare and embed them into this blog if they were happy for me to do that. In the meantime I am sending them a copy of this article. If you want to discuss IP and tax I should be happy to talk generally on the subject if you call me on 020 7404 5252 or fill in my contact form. If there are any questions that I can't answer I will pass them on to Anne Fairpo who wrote the book.

Sunday, 23 February 2014

A Patent is Essentially a Right to Bring a Law Suit

That was the message that I hammered home when I spoke to Ideas North West  at The Globe Centre in Accrington on the 16 Jan 2014. If someone steals your car or handbag you can complain to the police and if they catch the villain the Crown may prosecute him. However, if someone infringes your patent or most other intellectual property rights you have to sue him in the civil courts.

Until April 2002 legal aid was available for intellectual property infringement claims but paragraph 1 (h) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 scuppered that. A report by the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee in 2003 showed that the UK was one of the most expensive countries in the world in which to litigate. It found that the average cost of a patent infringement claim in the High Court was £1 million and between £150,000 and £250,000 in the Patents County Court compared to 30,000 to 50,000 euros in France, 50,000 euros in Germany and 10,000 to 40,000 euros in the Netherlands (see "The Enforcement of Patent Rights" Nov 2003). Only in the USA were costs comparable to those in this country. However, in the USA it has always been possible for lawyers to contract to provide representation in exchange for a share of any damages that may be recovered whereas that was not possible here until very recently. Also, it is unusual for the unsuccessful party to be ordered to pay the successful party's legal fees in the USA whereas that is the normal order here.

Consequently, the UK was probably the most difficult country in the world for a small or medium enterprise ("SME"). That was probably one reason why the UK has consistently trailed not just the USA, Japan, Germany and France in the number of European patent applications but even the Netherlands with a third of our population and Switzerland with one eighth (for the figures between 2002 and 2007 see my articler "Why IP Yorkshire?" 10 Sep 2008 IP Yorkshire).

Both Gowers and Hargreaves spotted the cost of enforcement of intellectual property rights and a significant disincentive to research and development and both this government and the last have taken steps to reduce the cost of dispute resolution. S.13 of the Patents Act 1977 inserted s.74A and s.74B into the Patents Act 1977 which enables patent examiners to give non-binding opinions on whether a patent is valid or whether it was been infringed. Amendments to Part 63 of the Civil Procedure Rules in October 2010 enabled the Patents County Court to reduce the cost of litigation and limited the costs that can be recovered from the other side to £50,000 in most cases. In October 2012 a new small claims track was established in the Patents County Court for claims up to £10,000. Finally, in October 2013 the Patents County Court was replaced by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court which is part of the Chancery Division but otherwise operates in exactly the same way as its predecessor.

Another development which should reduce the cost of enforcement for small and medium enterprises will be the new unitary or unified patent. This will be a European patent granted by the European Patent Office for all the member states of the European Union except Spain and Italy as though they were one country. Disputes over validity and infringement will be referred to a Unified Patent Court which will sit in Paris with sections in London and Munich.

I discussed all those developments and other matters in my paper "How to enforce your Intellectual Property Rights without going bust":



How to Enforce your Intellectual Property Rights without Going Bust from Jane Lambert

Of course, for most independent inventors, start-ups and other small businesses even £50,000 is a lot more than they can afford but there are now some insurance products that can minimize that expense and risk. One of the brokers that has developed such products is Cobra Special Risks and Ian Wishart of Cobra (who is also a patent attorney) discussed them in the following paper:



IP Insurance from Ian Wishart

If anyone wants to discuss this article or patenting or IP in general they can call me on 0161 850 0080 during normal office hours or get in touch through my contact form.  Alternatively, you can tweet me, write on my wall or message me through G+, Linkedin or Xing,

Friday, 6 December 2013

Copyright and Designs

David Fyfield, Charles Russell











On 12 Nov 2013 I presented a webinar on the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court to the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys. After giving the talk I was invited by Catherine Wolfe to apply to join ITMA which I did.  One of the advantages of ITMA learning about and attending interesting talks on intellectual property. One of those talks was David Fyfield's update of legislation and case law relating to copyright and designs which took place at Heatons' officers in Manchester

David is an associate in the IP department of Charles Russell. He read history at Oxford and was admitted as a solicitor in 2007.  He joined Charles Russell in 2011 and was instructed in Molnlycke Heakth Care;s claims against Wake Forest University and Brightwake (Molnlycke Health Care AB v Wake Forest University and Another [2009] EWHC 2204 (Pat) (28 Aug 2009) and Molnlycke Health Care v Brightwake [2012] EWCA Civ 602 (24 April 2012)).

Heatons describes itself as a "boutique corporate and commercial law firm prepared to challenge convention and able to direct the action" .   Its IP partner is Bill Lister whom I first met at Pannone well over 20 years ago. The firm laid on quite a tolerable spread for us though I was unable to do full justice to it having arrived just before the presentation.

In his talk David discussed
I am sure that David will be pleased to discuss those cases and legislation with you if you contact him and I should be happy to talk about them too. Should you require further information do not hesitate to call me on 0161 850 0080 during normal office hours or through my contact form. You can also tweet, write on my wall or send me a message through G+, Linkedin or Xing.

Saturday, 12 October 2013

What does the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court mean for Litigants in the North West?

Liverpool Civil and Family Court

















On 1 Oct 2013 The Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2013 and  The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.7) Rules 2013 came into force. Art 3 of the commencement order implemented s.17 (5) and paragraph 30 (3) of Schedule 9 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.  Those provisions repealed s.287 to s.289 and s.291 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and thereby abolished the Patents County Court.  Art 26 (b) (i) of the amendment rules established a new Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") as a specialist list within the Chancery Division.

Rules and Practice

IPEC exercises the same jurisdiction as was exercised by the Patents County Court. Most of the provisions of CPR Parts 45 and 63 that applied to the Patents County Court now apply to IPEC mutatis mutandis. Although part of the High Court IPEC has a small claims track as well as a multitrack. No new practice directions or court guides have been issued for IPEC. It may therefore be assumed that the old Part 63 Practice Direction and the Patents County Court and Small Claims Track guides continue to apply for the time being.

Liverpool, Manchester and Preston

The abolition of the Patents County Court and the establishment  of IPEC do not affect the jurisdiction of the rest of the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster and his deputies or of the Liverpool, Manchester and Preston County Courts under CPR 63.13 to hear intellectual property claims falling within paragraph 16.1 of the Part 63 Practice Direction.  When I wrote "Intellectual Property Litigation in Manchester and Liverpool" 11 July 2011 I thought that that jurisdiction would wither on the vine because I could think of very few circumstances why a litigant from the North West would wish to start his or her proceedings in Liverpool, Manchester or Preston.  I wrote:
"On 1 Oct 2010 new rules were adopted that make it very much cheaper and easier for small and medium enterprises ("SME") and individuals to bring any type of intellectual property claim in the Patents County Court. I discussed those rule changes in detail in my article "New Patents County Court Rules" on 31 Oct 2010. Since most intellectual property claims in North West England could be brought before the Patents County Court, practitioners in North West England should think long and hard as to whether it really is in their clients' best interests to issue proceedings out of Manchester, Liverpool or Preston rather than the Patents County Court. The only circumstances where I would still recommend issuing out of the Manchester, Liverpool or Preston District Registries are where the claim is likely to exceed £500,000 or where I need really urgent interim and probably "without notice" injunctive relief. I can think of no advantage of issuing intellectual property proceedings out of the Manchester, Liverpool or Preston county courts."
After the small claims track of the Patents County Court had been established I wrote in "Civil Justice Centre or the Rolls Building" 15 Oct 2012 I wrote:
"This new small claims track, which is in the Rolls Building in London, can probably handle many if not most of the intellectual property claims that have previously been brought in the chancery district registries and chancery county courts. Any case other than one relating to patents, registered and registered Community designs, semiconductor topographies and plant breeders' rights can be brought in the small claims track provided that the damages sought do not exceed £5,000. Since the remedy that most intellectual property owners want is an injunction against future infringement rather than damages or an account of profits for past infringement that is not a problem. Most intellectual property disputes are settled early either on undertakings given in correspondence or after the claimant is granted or refused an interim injunction. It is very rare for a successful claimant to insist on an account or an inquiry and very few settlements require the defendant to pay the claimant substantial damages."
There have been two developments since then that have caused me to modify my view.  The first is the introduction of costs management into all courts on 1 April 2013 and the abolition of the right to recover success fees and insurance premiums from the other side by virtue of Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The second is s.17 (1) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which will establish a single County Court for the whole of England and Wales which can sit anywhere in those countries and will have nationwide jurisdiction over all intellectual property cases other than patents. registered and registered Community designs, semiconductor topographies and plant varieties which are reserved to the Patents Court and IPEC by CPR 63.2 (2).  It is also worth noting that the Court of Appeal reasserted the jurisdiction of the chancery county courts o hear small intellectual property claims in Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios Ltd [2012] EWCA civ 570 on 3 May 2012, a few months before the Patents County Court's small claims track was established (see my article "Enforcing Small IP Claims: Sullivan v Bristol Film Studios" 7 May 2012 NIPC Law).   For these and other reasons I wrote "Maybe we need to think again about the Chancery District Registries and County Courts" 5 May 2013 4-5 IP.

Which Cases would be suitable for Liverpool, Manchester or Preston?

If a claimant and his or her solicitors are in the North and he or she requires urgent interim injunctive relief I would consider issuing proceedings in Liverpool, Manchester or Preston. I would also consider issuing proceedings there for other IP claims if all the parties and their witnesses were in the North. Finally, I would consider the County Court sitting in those cities for claims similar to Sullivan's.

Other Procedures

Litigants and their professional advisers should never forget the alternatives to litigation.   For instance, domain name disputes can be determined more expeditiously and cost-effectively under ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service. Advisory opinions on validity and infringement of patents from IPO examiners can be obtained for £200 (see "Patent Office Advisory Opinions available from Monday" 1 Oct 2005 NIPC Law) and this service will soon be extended to design disputes by the Intellectual Property Bill (see "The Intellectual Property Bill" 28 May 2013). The IPO's hearing officers can determine claims for revocation of patents, revocation and invalidity of trade marks and many other intellectual property cases for a fraction of the costs of litigation in IPEC. The IPO also offers a very reasonably priced mediation service.

Further Information

If you require further information I shall present a webinar on IPEC's small claims track to the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys between 12:00 and 13:00 on 12 Nov 2013.  You can also call me on 0161 850 0080 during normal office hours or message me through my contact form.  You can also tweet, write on my wall or send me a message through G+Linkedin or Xing.

Sunday, 22 September 2013

Creative Industries KTN Strategy and Funding Competitions Briefing in Salford on 1 Oct

























According to the Creative Industries' Knowledge Transfer Network strategy programme for 2013 to 2016 the creative industries make up one of the UK’s leading industrial sectors, responsible for 1.4 million jobs and 5.3% of the country’s GVA. Apparently the UK has around 5% of the global export market for creative goods which ranges "from advertising and crafts to performing arts and video games." The document adds that
"As well as their direct economic value, these industries play an important role in catalysing innovation across the wider economy, through the products and services they provide, but also as means of originating and spreading new ideas, knowledge and ways of working."
In accordance with this strategy the KTN has announced tow two funding competitions that start this month:

To discuss those competitions the KTN is holding briefing meetings in London, Manchester, Glasgow, Gateshead, Birmingham and Cardiff.   The Manchester meeting will take place between 10:30 and 16:30 on 1 Oct 2013 at "The Landing", Salford, M50 2ST and you can book on-line through Eventbrite.