A High court The fight has been going on for three long time Royal albert hall Seat holders launch one trial Against the corporation’s corporation, the loss is demanding more than £ 500,000.
They allege that the institution has “illegally” denied them from their seats.
Arthur George, who holds 12 seats in two separate boxes, and William and Alexander Stocker, the owner of four seats in the same box, claims the corporation of the Hall of Arts and Sciences – which is usually known as the Royal Albert Hall (RAH) – excluded them out of the permission of their rules.
His legal representatives are now asking a judge to declare exclusion exercise illegal.
They are demanding an prohibition to prevent restricting access to the Royal Albert Hall Act 1966.
He told the High Court on Friday that the seat holders have “ownership of using their seats, or otherwise to sell or give their tickets”.
The three are asking a judge to rule in their favor without testing and providing an interim payment of £ 500,000 in compensation, beyond the entire amount.
The corporation opposes the application, its lawyers said that the matter should proceed to test.
He told in a hearing London That the body had excluded members on other occasions, but it was approved by members through a document of memorandum and guidelines.
Representing David Satwell, Mr. George and Stoclers, told the court on Friday: “This is not a violation of the contract case, we say it is a wrong use of someone else’s property.
“We say, if you take someone else’s property and use it, you are responsible for compensating the owner of the property for that use.
“One of the questions is,” How would those contenders have used their seats? “
“Did they go there, did they sell them, or did they not use them?
“What does a property owner do with his property is a case for him.”
He said: “If the seats have been wrongly taken away, we say that you have to consider what the value of those seats will be.”
In written presentations, Mr. Satwell said: “It is not disputed by the parties that the corporation has crossed its power … By providing more exclusive than allowing it to do it under that provision, it has been doing this for many years, and it intends to do so in the future.
“In 2008, the corporation accepted the members who had more than many years, to follow the events as an exclusive value.”
In the written submission for the corporation, Simon Tabe Casey said: “The claimants, who have been members of each corporation since 2008, did not vote against the memorandum and guidelines up to 2023 AGMs.”
He said: “The background of the claim is that in recent years the complaints of the claimants with the corporation have deteriorated due to complaints from the claimants about various financial matters.”
Mr. Tabe also said: “The case of the corporation, in a very brief outline, is that even if the contenders can identify a theoretical intervention with their rights, it does not harm the contenders as members and in any case, the corporation has a rescue based on the consent of the claimants or the acquisition or acquisition in providing additional exclusive.”
The hearing before Sir Anthony Mann is scheduled to end on Friday.