Cartier International AG and others (Respondents) v British Telecommunications Plc and another (Appellants)

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the appellants, British Telecommunications Plc and another, in relation to the costs of complying with website-blocking orders. The respondents, Cartier International AG and others, had obtained injunctions requiring the appellants to block access to specified websites that sold counterfeit luxury goods. The main issue in the appeal was whether the rights-holders should be required to indemnify the appellants for the costs of implementing the website-blocking orders. The Supreme Court held that the ordinary principle in English law is that an innocent intermediary is entitled to be indemnified by the rights-holder against the costs of complying with a website-blocking order. The Court found that the appellants were legally innocent as they were merely providing a communications network and had no liability for the infringing activities of third parties. The Court of Appeal's decision that the rights-holders should bear the costs of compliance was therefore wrong. The Supreme Court varied the orders to provide that the respondents should indemnify the appellants for their reasonable costs of processing and implementing the orders. The Court found that the appellants were entitled to their costs of the litigation as they had made the case a test case and had resisted the application.