- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Posts
- 1,911
- Reaction score
- 850
A long-running dispute over Nominet membership fees has reached an important stage, after a claim brought by Nominet member Curon Davies t/a Parth.Cymru was dismissed by the Court in Cardiff on 21 May 2026.
According to Kevin Murphy of DomainIncite, Nominet circulated a short statement to members saying that the claim for a refund of membership fees had been dismissed, with costs to be determined later. Nominet also said it did not yet have the written court order and would wait for that before commenting further.
The case is of interest to some .uk industry participants (not majority, based on my personal experience) whohave raised a wider question: whether Nominet’s long-standing membership fee structure had been properly supported by its constitutional documents.
The claim was brought by Curon Davies, represented by solicitor @JimDavies, who has for some time been involved in Nominet governance discussions through the WeightedVoting.uk campaign. Both are well known to Acorn Domains members and the UK domain industry. While Nominet has now succeeded at this stage, Jim Davies has said that he respectfully disagrees with the decision and that an application to appeal is being prepared.
Background: what was the dispute about?
Nominet currently lists its membership fees as a £400 + VAT joining fee and a £100 + VAT annual renewal fee. Membership gives participants a formal role in Nominet governance, including voting at AGMs, proposing and seconding candidates, and electing non-executive directors.
The claimant’s argument was not simply about one individual refund. The wider point being tested was whether Nominet had the power, under its Articles and bye-laws, to charge membership fees in the way it has done for many years.
The claim form, issued in July 2023, sought repayment of £960 in fees plus a £70 court fee. This covered the £400 + VAT joining fee and annual subscription fees from 2019 to 2022.
The argument relied partly on legal opinions obtained by the WeightedVoting.uk campaign from Iain Mitchell KC. Those opinions argued that, after 1997, Nominet’s Articles did not provide the necessary basis for the current fee arrangements unless proper bye-laws and member approvals existed.
Nominet has not accepted that view. It has continued to list membership fees publicly and, in 2023, consulted members on modernising its Articles of Association to better reflect how the company operates today.
Why this mattered beyond one member
The sums in the individual claim were modest, but the principle was potentially much larger. If the claimant’s interpretation had been accepted and applied more broadly, the question of refunds to other members could have arisen.
DomainIncite reported in 2022 that the possible exposure discussed by the campaign could have reached many millions over the full period, although limitation rules might have reduced practical exposure to around £1.5 million. WeightedVoting.uk separately estimated possible overpayments in the millions.
It is important to stress that those figures were campaign and media estimates. They were not sums awarded by the court.
The latest outcome
The most recent development is that the Cardiff court dismissed the claim on 21 May 2026. Nominet’s statement, as reported by DomainIncite, says costs will be determined later and that Nominet will wait for the written order before further comment.
Jim Davies has said that the claimant’s side disagrees with the ruling and intends to apply for permission to appeal.
For now, the practical position is that no general refund to Nominet members has been ordered. The case may not yet be fully concluded if an appeal application proceeds.
Timeline of key events
What does this mean for Nominet members?
For members, the immediate takeaway is simple: Nominet has successfully defended this claim at this stage, and no general repayment scheme has been ordered.
The wider governance questions around Nominet’s Articles, voting structure and membership arrangements have been part of member debate for several years. Nominet has acknowledged that its Articles are complex and has attempted to modernise them, although the 2023 special resolution did not pass.
The respectful conclusion is that both sides considered the issue important enough to test through formal channels. Nominet has an obvious duty to protect the stability of the .uk registry and its members’ funds. The claimant side argued that constitutional clarity and member rights were important enough to pursue through the courts.
Until the written order and any appeal position are available, it would be sensible not to overstate the finality of the matter. At present, however, Nominet has won the case at first instance.
Sources
This, of course, is a news summary for discussion purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice.
I am sure @JimDavies will be able to share more details when he feels the time is right.
Personally, I hope that no one involved is left facing heavy legal bills. For most people, costs of that scale can have a very serious and lasting impact.
I also hope this matter can now come to a peaceful close, so the wider Nominet membership can return its focus to business, constructive discussions, and future proposals for change, without the need for lawyers or court proceedings wherever possible. I also believe that monthly or bi-monthly in-person meetings would be much cheaper and effective than fighting in courts.
Happy Wednesday!
Helmuts
P.S. A gentle reminder to please keep all discussion on Acorn Domains respectful towards every individual and organisation involved. Thank you for respecting this simple rule.
According to Kevin Murphy of DomainIncite, Nominet circulated a short statement to members saying that the claim for a refund of membership fees had been dismissed, with costs to be determined later. Nominet also said it did not yet have the written court order and would wait for that before commenting further.
The case is of interest to some .uk industry participants (not majority, based on my personal experience) whohave raised a wider question: whether Nominet’s long-standing membership fee structure had been properly supported by its constitutional documents.
The claim was brought by Curon Davies, represented by solicitor @JimDavies, who has for some time been involved in Nominet governance discussions through the WeightedVoting.uk campaign. Both are well known to Acorn Domains members and the UK domain industry. While Nominet has now succeeded at this stage, Jim Davies has said that he respectfully disagrees with the decision and that an application to appeal is being prepared.
Background: what was the dispute about?
Nominet currently lists its membership fees as a £400 + VAT joining fee and a £100 + VAT annual renewal fee. Membership gives participants a formal role in Nominet governance, including voting at AGMs, proposing and seconding candidates, and electing non-executive directors.
The claimant’s argument was not simply about one individual refund. The wider point being tested was whether Nominet had the power, under its Articles and bye-laws, to charge membership fees in the way it has done for many years.
The claim form, issued in July 2023, sought repayment of £960 in fees plus a £70 court fee. This covered the £400 + VAT joining fee and annual subscription fees from 2019 to 2022.
The argument relied partly on legal opinions obtained by the WeightedVoting.uk campaign from Iain Mitchell KC. Those opinions argued that, after 1997, Nominet’s Articles did not provide the necessary basis for the current fee arrangements unless proper bye-laws and member approvals existed.
Nominet has not accepted that view. It has continued to list membership fees publicly and, in 2023, consulted members on modernising its Articles of Association to better reflect how the company operates today.
Why this mattered beyond one member
The sums in the individual claim were modest, but the principle was potentially much larger. If the claimant’s interpretation had been accepted and applied more broadly, the question of refunds to other members could have arisen.
DomainIncite reported in 2022 that the possible exposure discussed by the campaign could have reached many millions over the full period, although limitation rules might have reduced practical exposure to around £1.5 million. WeightedVoting.uk separately estimated possible overpayments in the millions.
It is important to stress that those figures were campaign and media estimates. They were not sums awarded by the court.
The latest outcome
The most recent development is that the Cardiff court dismissed the claim on 21 May 2026. Nominet’s statement, as reported by DomainIncite, says costs will be determined later and that Nominet will wait for the written order before further comment.
Jim Davies has said that the claimant’s side disagrees with the ruling and intends to apply for permission to appeal.
For now, the practical position is that no general refund to Nominet members has been ordered. The case may not yet be fully concluded if an appeal application proceeds.
Timeline of key events
- 24 May 1996 - Nominet UK is incorporated as a private company limited by guarantee.
- 1996-1997 - Early Nominet membership and voting arrangements are later examined as part of the wider governance debate. The claimant side argued that voting rights and subscription levels were historically linked.
- 24 August 2022 - Iain Mitchell KC provides an opinion for Dulwich Storage Company Ltd on Nominet’s weighted voting arrangements.
- 21 September 2022 - A supplementary opinion from Iain Mitchell KC addresses membership subscriptions, arguing that Nominet lacked authority to collect current-style subscriptions after 1997 unless proper bye-laws and member approvals existed.
- 28 September 2022 - DomainIncite reports that the legal opinion could raise questions over many years of Nominet membership fees.
- July 2023 - Nominet is consulting on proposed changes to its Articles of Association. Nominet later says it made an honest mistake in a consultation document regarding whether early tiered membership fees had ever been implemented.
- 5-6 July 2023 - Curon Davies t/a Parth.Cymru files and has issued a County Court claim against Nominet UK under claim number 423MC115. The claim seeks £960 in fees and a £70 court fee.
- 28 July 2023 - A default judgment is entered for £1,030. This later becomes a procedural issue rather than the final determination of the underlying membership fee argument.
- 17 October 2023 - Nominet’s proposed Articles modernisation resolution is put to members at the AGM. Nominet later records that the special resolution, which required 90% support, was not passed.
- 31 January 2024 - According to DomainIncite’s reporting of a Nominet member update, Nominet successfully applies to have the default judgment set aside, allowing it to defend the original claim.
- April 2025 - The claim is affected by strike-out / dismissal orders connected with procedural directions.
- August 2025 - The claimant successfully applies to have certain April 2025 orders set aside. A later court order lists the claim for a two-day trial window in late 2025.
- 15 May 2026 - Court listing information shows an application hearing in the case at Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre.
- 20-21 May 2026 - Court listing information shows the case listed for fast-track hearings at Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre before District Judge Vernon.
- 21 May 2026 - Nominet says the claim is dismissed by the Court in Cardiff. Costs are to be determined later.
- 27 May 2026 - DomainIncite reports the dismissal and publishes reaction from Jim Davies, who says an appeal application is being prepared.
What does this mean for Nominet members?
For members, the immediate takeaway is simple: Nominet has successfully defended this claim at this stage, and no general repayment scheme has been ordered.
The wider governance questions around Nominet’s Articles, voting structure and membership arrangements have been part of member debate for several years. Nominet has acknowledged that its Articles are complex and has attempted to modernise them, although the 2023 special resolution did not pass.
The respectful conclusion is that both sides considered the issue important enough to test through formal channels. Nominet has an obvious duty to protect the stability of the .uk registry and its members’ funds. The claimant side argued that constitutional clarity and member rights were important enough to pursue through the courts.
Until the written order and any appeal position are available, it would be sensible not to overstate the finality of the matter. At present, however, Nominet has won the case at first instance.
Sources
- DomainIncite: Nominet membership fee claim dismissed
- DomainIncite: 2022 report on legal opinion
- DomainIncite: Nominet membership fees / Articles consultation context
- DomainIncite: default judgment set aside update
- Nominet: Membership fees and member role
- Nominet: Articles consultation
- Published claim form: Davies t/a Parth.Cymru v Nominet UK
This, of course, is a news summary for discussion purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice.
I am sure @JimDavies will be able to share more details when he feels the time is right.
Personally, I hope that no one involved is left facing heavy legal bills. For most people, costs of that scale can have a very serious and lasting impact.
I also hope this matter can now come to a peaceful close, so the wider Nominet membership can return its focus to business, constructive discussions, and future proposals for change, without the need for lawyers or court proceedings wherever possible. I also believe that monthly or bi-monthly in-person meetings would be much cheaper and effective than fighting in courts.
Happy Wednesday!
Helmuts
P.S. A gentle reminder to please keep all discussion on Acorn Domains respectful towards every individual and organisation involved. Thank you for respecting this simple rule.
