On 22 December, 2005, Recorder Claire Miskin delivered her judgment in the Southampton County Court in the case of The Honourable Nicholas Augustine Plant v Service Direct (UK). One issue in the case was whether an internet domain name is an item of property and, in particular, whether interference with a domain name can give rise to a cause of action under the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977. To appreciate the scale of the issue, at present there are around 86 million domain names registered globally and hence potentially capable of being interfered with.
‘Goods’ are defined under the 1977 Act as “all chattels personal other than things in action and money”. The clear intention of the Act is that only physical objects come within its scope. Documentary intangibles – such as promissory notes, bearer bonds or other negotiable instruments – are, nonetheless, subject to the Act.
