The review was conducted by David Landau and Chris Bowen, two senior and well-respected figures within the UKIPO. Both of them examined outside data and materials, including the two Monopolies and Mergers Commission reports on collecting societies, the Collective Licensing report of 1988 and the Performing Rights report of 1996. The highly-rated Copyright Board of Canada (CBC), was also studied and discussed upon. Here are the 30 recommendations that they created upon their study:

(1) The CT should be balanced and have no disposition in favour of one side or the other.

(2) The Copyright Tribunal Rules 1989 should be repealed and the proceedings of the CT governed by the CPR and practice directions.

(3) There should be one standard form for all references to the CT.

(4) The fees of the CT should be abolished.

(5) The reasoning behind licence schemes and tariffs should be clearly shown.

(6) A challenge to the terms of a licence should be based on fact.

(7) The CT (with the extra resources mentioned in recommendation 18) should take
an active part in formulating methodologies for the objectification of the criteria for
the conditions of a licensing scheme or licence.

(8) Once an application has been made to the CT the case should be allocated to the
chairman or deputy chairman, who should be responsible for all aspects of the case
from thence forward.

(9) Once the counterstatement has been received a case management conference should be called as soon as possible to direct the management of the case.

(10) The CT should ask for particular questions to be answered in the evidence.

(11) The CT should put clear limitations on the type and quantity of the evidence that is submitted.

(12) The emphasis should be on written rather than oral evidence. The IPKat says, about time too.

(13) If a hearing is to take place it should be the subject of a strict timetable.

(14) Expert evidence should only be allowed if strictly necessary. If there is expert evidence it should be by a single, joint expert. 

(15) The CT should set a target for the completion of all cases, from receipt of
application, to issue of decision.  
 
(16) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) should be used when appropriate, there
should be no compulsion to use it.
 
(17) The staff of the CT should be based in London and the UK Intellectual Property
Office should supply the necessary accommodation. 

(18) There should be a permanent staff of two who will report directly to the chairman
of the CT. 
 
(19) There should be no restriction on the number of deputy chairmen.
 
(20) The lay members should be abolished. 
 
(21) The head of the CT should be called the President.
 
(22) The position of president/chairman should be salaried and an open recruitment
exercise held for the appointment of the first and future presidents. 
 
(23) An annual budget for the CT should be set by the president/chairman in
conjunction with the UK Intellectual Property Office. 
 
(24) The CT should be responsible for all content on its own website but the UK
Intellectual Property Office should manage and administer the site for the CT. 
 
(25) Licensing bodies should be able to make references to the CT under sections 118
and 125 of the CDPA. 
 
(26) The provisions of sections 128A and 128B of the CDPA should be reviewed. 
 
(27) Whether there should be a reference to the CT under section 128(A) of the
CDPA should be determined by the chairman of the CT. 
 
(28) There should not be any change in the basis for appeal from a decision of the CT.

(29) The CT should be responsible for granting licences for the use of orphan works.

(30) The collecting societies should be referred to as licensing societies.

---