The dispute between CableVision and Government:

The dispute began in November 2008 when new regulations gave the BBC a choice whether to ask Cablevision to carry its channels for free or in return for payment.

The BBC demanded payment and Cablevision chose in response not to carry the BBC's channels.

There was a lengthy court battle as to whether CableVision, having made this choice, needed the Commission's approval. The courts eventually ruled that CableVision did require approval.

During the course of the litigation, the BBC and CableVision agreed through meditation a settlement whereby CableVision would carry the BBC's channels but on a different tier that customers could opt in or out of.

If customers subscribed to the tier, the BBC would receive the fees.

The overall price of receiving cable service including the local channels for economy tier customers would not increase under the settlement.

The Commission, through its attorneys, pre-approved the proposed structure.

At the centre of the Supreme Court dispute were letters sent to CableVision by the Telecommunications Commission's lawyer Victor Lyon of law firm Attride Stirling and Woloniecki, prior to the BBC and Cablevision agreeing the deal.

CableVision's lawyer Narinder Hargun said those letters gave CableVision a legitimate expectation that the Commission would approve the deal for the new two tier service.

The judge agreed with this in yesterday's ruling and agreed that the Commission's actions, in ignoring those letters, were an abuse of power.