Court orders Nominet to repay Member Subscriptions

[super-whois]

https://weightedvoting.uk/2023/08/03/court-orders-nominet-to-repay-member-subscriptions/

 

[jasman]

Does this mean we can expect to be refunded our original £400 joining fee plus £100 for every year that we have been members?

 

[JimDavies]

Does this mean we can expect to be refunded our original £400 joining fee plus £100 for every year that we have been members?

There's usually a six year limitation period for what you can claim. As far as I can see, there is no right to charge a joining fee anywhere. So maybe a £1,000 per member as a starting point.

But in Iain Mitchell KC's opinion (link here), he raises the question of unjust enrichment, which in turn might mean that no limitation period applies. It's a complicated question that he leaves open in his opinion, but it could mean it's possible to go back to 1997/98.

You'll see at the end of his opinion he urged the parties to try to sort things out by discussing them. All of us involved in Weighted Voting agreed and we tried. We've particiapted in many member calls and events. Unfortunately, all attempts to open more formal talks with the Nominet board have been declined.

 

[atlas]

Is it possible to get a copy of the claim that was filed?

 

[super-whois]

Is it possible to get a copy of the claim that was filed?

It's linked in the article under 'Read Claim Form'.

 

[atlas]

It's linked in the article under 'Read Claim Form'.

That is the Judgment - I am looking for a copy of the claim initially filed by the claimant.

 

[super-whois]

I am looking for a copy of the claim initially filed by the claimant.

That's under 'Read County Court Judgement', not 'Read Claim Form'.

 

[atlas]

That's under 'Read County Court Judgement', not 'Read Claim Form'.

Thanks - I need a stronger prescription of glasses

 

[JimDavies]

Really interesting. As a member no more, I'd love to receive back the money I invested into the membership initially. Can't see Nominet doling out £5m though

In principle, I think you may well be able to bring a claim.

As to the total possible liability, there have been a number of cases dealing with the rights of air passengers under an EU Regulation of 2004. Many of those started in small claims or similar type courts and ended up in the European Court of Justice. The airlines fought them so hard because they realised while a specific claim was modest, the effect of a decision against them would mean significant exposure to compensation payments.

So it's not as simple as Nominet now not wanting to pay out. If they have not opposed a claim for a refund here and so accepted liability, which appears to have happened here, then what is to stop any other members or former members from making a virtually identical claim?

When the whole landscape about subscriptions appears to have changed so dramatically, how can the consultation continue?

 

[mally]

First I've heard of this, thankyou to whoever did this...

 

[Paullas]

I wouldnt count your chickens yet, Nominet will find a way out/around it.

 

[ELIFE-MZ]

I hope this doesn't mean price rises to cover refunds (if there are refunds).

 

[super-whois]

I hope this doesn't mean price rises to cover refunds

According to the 2022 accounts, Nominet have £102 million in net assets, most of which in investments, so paying it all back shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Nigel]

I hope this doesn't mean price rises to cover refunds (if there are refunds).

Good point - but they can't be that hard up. They've just agree to fund one charity for £4.5m over 3 years. Domain registrants should come first - after all it's our reg fees that fund all their wages, bonuses, book publication fees, and good causes. That's why Jim should be on the ballot - he was committed to bring down reg fees. After all lower reg fees means more domains will be renewed

 

[jasman]

There can be no justification for raising prices. They should never have raised them last time, Nominet had far more income than it needed to operate the registry at the old £2.50/ yr price, hence being able to siphon off £tens of millions into the Nominet Trust (£44 million between 2008 and 2018 alone plus many millions more on failed ventures - so £5 million back to members is chicken feed). With such excesses, reg fees should have been lowered but as we all know there was very bad management at the helm, and ultimately they inflamed the wrath of the membership and had to pay the price with an untimely and ignoble eviction from office.

But now Nominet should act honorably towards its membership and reimburse members out of their more than ample revenue, then immediately lower prices in line with the cost base. Anything else would not be acting in the membership's interest or operating the registry efficiently for the public good.

 

[bluerock]

Maybe someone with more legal knowledge than myself could comment on the possibility of a group litigation order. The costs could be split between the litigants and would be preferable to single members looking at county court action.

 

[super-whois]

They've just agree to fund one charity for £4.5m over 3 years.

Last I checked they weren't a charity, but another company limited by guarantee, that just happens to pay people with links to Eleanor Bradley.

 

[Nigel]

Looked them up - I can see a large part of their work is in Australia. Hope we're not footing the bill for the Aussies getting internet access! They can afford it themselves. Also the exec pay is very nice if you can land one of these jobs. Top earner shown is on about £150k (last published accounts - and inc pension contributions).

 

[jasman]

There's usually a six year limitation period for what you can claim. As far as I can see, there is no right to charge a joining fee anywhere. So maybe a £1,000 per member as a starting point.

But in Iain Mitchell KC's opinion (link here), he raises the question of unjust enrichment, which in turn might mean that no limitation period applies. It's a complicated question that he leaves open in his opinion, but it could mean it's possible to go back to 1997/98.

You'll see at the end of his opinion he urged the parties to try to sort things out by discussing them. All of us involved in Weighted Voting agreed and we tried. We've particiapted in many member calls and events. Unfortunately, all attempts to open more formal talks with the Nominet board have been declined.

Thanks very much to you and Iain for all your efforts in this area. If we manage to get our membership fees back I would certainly like to buy you a good bottle of whisky or something like that to show appreciation.

 

[Chris Holland]

With the large amount of phantom tags coming out of Milton Keynes a while back, a bumper windfall from Nominet could rejuvenate the town. I'd imagine that local businesses offering garish luminescent veneers, spray tan salons and fake Balenciaga chavwear would particularly benefit. As would cheque cashing stores, to cope with all the cheques made out to the large number of "Smiths" who will be unable to cash the cheques through normal means.

This event will also probably breathe new life into the Bulgarian economy with the Bulgarian cartel's hundreds of tags all receiving hard currency which can be reinvested into travellers caravans, bare knuckle fighting and dog fighting rings.