Court of Appeal nullifies €656 Ed Sheeran ticket refund order due to procedural breach

The Court of Appeal has sent back a consumer dispute over misrepresented Ed Sheeran concert seating, ruling that the Consumer Claims Tribunal breached justice by deciding the case without properly notifying one of the companies involved.

The Court of Appeal has ordered that a consumer claim for compensation related to "deceitful" seating at an Ed Sheeran concert be sent back to the Consumer Claims Tribunal, ruling that the initial judgment was procedurally flawed because one of the key parties was never notified.

The case, decided on Friday, concerns Karen Zammit Southernwood, who successfully sued Showshappening Limited after buying four tickets for the Ed Sheeran concert held in Ta' Qali in 2024.

The claimant had purchased four "Seated B – Z4" tickets on 10 November 2023 for a total of €856.00, which included €800 for the tickets (at €200 each) and a €56.00 booking fee.

Southernwood initiated proceedings because the seats allocated did not correspond to the advertised seating plan. She complained that the stand designated as Z4 was portrayed on the original plan as being "almost mid-way through the venue," but was actually placed "at the far end of the venue". In correspondence dated 27 June 2024, she described the method of selling the tickets as "deceitful," stating that had she known the true placement, she would have "simply stayed home".

The Consumer Claims Tribunal accepted the consumer’s complaint, finding she had reason for her demand and was entitled to compensation. On 13 November 2024, the tribunal partially upheld the claim, ordering Showshappening Limited to pay the claimant €656.00, plus interest and costs. Showshappening Limited failed to submit a response or send a representative to the Tribunal hearing, despite being duly notified.

Showshappening appealed the decision, raising two grievances. The core argument centred on a violation of due process and natural justice.

The company argued that while it was notified of the claim, the co-sued party, NNG Promotions Limited (C 31353), was never notified of the claim at the address provided by the MCCAA and therefore did not participate in the proceedings. Showshappening pointed out that this breached the requirement by the arbitrator to take steps to ensure all parties are notified.

Showshappening also argued that it was merely a "booking agent", responsible only for the €56.00 booking fee. It contended that it should not be condemned to refund the €800 ticket price, which it claimed it never received, and that the tribunal erred by assuming Showshappening was the event organiser.

The Court of Appeal accepted the argument regarding procedural violation.

Judge Mintoff noted that the claimant clearly knew that both Showshappening Limited and NNG Promotions Limited were involved in the concert's organisation, yet the acts showed clearly that NNG Promotions Limited was never notified. The court stated that the tribunal failed in its obligation to ensure every party was notified before proceeding to judgment.

The court declared that it has a duty to ensure the tribunal does not take a position or issue a decision before hearing all parties involved. Consequently, the first grievance (lack of due process) was accepted.

Crucially, the court declined to address the merits of the case (the Second Grievance regarding the €656.00 amount). It ruled that it would be unjust to analyse the substance of the decision when the tribunal decided without giving every party the opportunity to respond and present evidence.

The final order mandates that the case acts must be sent back to the tribunal so that a date can be fixed for the notification of NNG Promotions Limited, allowing the tribunal the opportunity to hear what this company has to say regarding the claimant's demands.

Costs were ordered to remain unassessed at this stage.

The judgment also clarified that even though the companies failed to appear before the tribunal and were declared in default, they still retained their right to appeal. A default is still considered a valid form of contestation.

The judgement showed that when a tribunal makes a mistake that affects fairness, such as failing to properly notify NNG in this case, the parties remain entitled to challenge the decision. This applies even if NNG later failed to reply after eventually being notified.

Lawyer Robert Gauci Maistre appeared for Showshappening.