I received following email by a venue in London:

"Hi there

We are getting in touch as we are afraid we have had to refund your ticket for the event tonight. One of the artists performing has brought to our attention behaviour online that has made them feel very uncomfortable, and for their wellbeing and safety we have agreed it is best for you to not attend.

Regards ..."

I responded with the request to provide necessary evidence to make such a serious allegation. If they don’t provide any evidence, is there something I can do legally? What time frame should I allow them to provide me with the evidence? Calling someone a threat for someone else’s well-being and safety without proof and singling me out of attending a concert is falsity, no? T&C and the fact they refunded me would not apply here in the first place, correct?

  • 4
    They didn't call you a threat, make any allegation against you, or say anything else about you, other than that you are the recipient of a ticket refund. They said that the performer say something online that made them feel uncomfortable. What proof do you think you're entitled to? What could they show you that you wouldn't dispute?
    – bdb484
    Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 0:08
  • Can you please edit the question to include ALL of the statements and online conduct to which they could possibly be referring? Commented Apr 27, 2022 at 4:06

2 Answers 2


A private venue normally has discretion over who may attend their premises, as long as it is not because of membership in a protected class under anti-discrimination law.

Note that the communication, as quoted, did not say that the banned person was a threat, but only that one of the performers felt uncomfortable.

I do not think that the banned person has any legal recourse, unless they can plausibly assert that this is a case of unlawful discrimination, which the question does not suggest.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – feetwet
    Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 13:47
  • 1
    Side note about the evidence questions: No, they are not needed to provide anything. In fact, the business, by refunding the ticket, did rescind the contract and the two are no longer contractually bound, there is no relationship anymore.
    – Trish
    Commented Sep 24, 2022 at 10:03
  • Even if a question does not suggest it, it indeed was an unlawful discrimination. Stigmatising and labelling someone a criminal aka terrorist to public safety is comparable to methods and manners the Nazis and the German public was exposed to. It seems that most "democratic" nations adopted these methods and manners unquestionably since the entirely engineered covid event.
    – Dan
    Commented Jun 1, 2023 at 18:11

As I’ve learned on this site, private businesses can exercise near total discretion in who they choose to serve and transact with, though with some exceptions.

In this case, I think that because they had already taken your money and thus willingly entered into a contract with you, the question would be determined by the terms and conditions of the contract, within the bounds of statutorily valid/fair contract terms in the context of consumer rights law. I’m not terribly well versed in this body of law, but could well easily imagine that just as tenancies can contain break clauses exercisable by the tenant though not the landlord, there could well be consumer rights statutes which say that once a business has taken your money you may be entitled to arbitrarily back out of the contract and request a refund under certain conditions but the business cannot unilaterally cancel the contract.

Further, I suspect that this could very likely implicate anti discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 on the basis that you are being discriminated against likely in retaliation for expressions of your political beliefs. While I’m on my way out the door currently, I’m heavily inclined to recall that that is a protected class under the equality act 2010 and they thus cannot refuse to serve you any more than they could hang a sign to say no tories (or communists) allowed.

  • 2
    In breech of contract cases, the likely result of a win would be money damages to make the injured party whole, in this case a refund of the ticket price. Since the concert venue has provided a refund, there is no further basis for a contract suit. Courts are very reluctant to order "specific performance" in a contract case, and will generally do so only when the object of the contract is both unique and significant. The classic case is the sale of a house; a seller may be order to complete the sale, because no other house is the same. I can'y speak to the effect of the UK Equality Act. Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 14:40
  • 1
    @David Siegel I think the argument could absolutely be made that there’s no substitute for a community art performance event, that no two live performances are the same, etc. but even in money damages I think it could much much more easily be argued that the emotional hurt of being forcibly excluded from a community event/gathering and the social group that goes along with it surpasses just the money that was paid. Furthermore what if one had planned their day or even week around attendance of the event? Then there would also be inconvenience, travel costs, etc. Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 15:02
  • 2
    @Joeseph P Yes, a concert can be a unique event, but that is not the kind of situation in which courts tend to order specific performance. Nor, to the best of my understanding, are the kind of emotional and secondardy damages you discuss generally awarded in a breech of contract case. One could argue that they should be, and courts have significant discretion in such matters, depending on the jurisdiction, but I think such awards are in fact quite unusual. If an anti-discrimination law is held to apply, the standards may well be different. Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 16:35
  • 2
    1) My error. Since "Breech" is also a word, but a different one, spellcheck fails to catch it. 2) I would say ths point is to choose not to associate with those who have expressed views one considers repugnant and harmful. People have a right of free association, which includes the right not to associate. [...] Commented Apr 26, 2022 at 1:48
  • 3
    @Dan It is possible to cause offence, or appear threatening, without intending to do so, and without being aware of having done so. That may feel unfair, but it happens; and sometimes there's nothing you can do about it, other than attempt to learn from the experience and walk away. Commented Apr 26, 2022 at 11:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .