The original dispute involved a claim for damages by a television satirist and the company which had licensed his show to a TV company after the TV company decided to stop showing the programme as there had been public criticism of its content before the end of the contracted run of the series. The TV company had also made a counter claim that the satirist had not followed agreed procedures on the screening of content. One of the key issues was whether there arbitration panel had jurisdiction to hear the case and if it had shown bias in its decision. Rather than focus on these points the Court of Appeal in its decision focused on the fact evidence of the damages had not been provided and that the constitutional right to freedom of expression had been breached.