Dr Vanessa Hill v Touchlight Genetics Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1913 (Pat)
Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Limited & Anor v Made Television Limited & Ors
29 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC)
High Court
Two companies sued others for unpaid TV licensing fees. The defendants wanted to add arguments that the fees were unfair and they shouldn't have to pay. The judge let them add most of these arguments, but not the parts that were unclear or accused the other companies of dishonesty. The judge balanced making sure everyone had a fair trial with keeping costs reasonable.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Limited and Performing Right Society Limited) brought debt actions against Defendants (Made Television Limited, Made in Liverpool 2016 Limited, and Made in Birmingham Limited) for unpaid licensing fees under local television licensing agreements.
- •Defendants initially denied the debt, alleging the fees were unfair and breached the Claimants' Code of Conduct.
- •Defendants applied to file an Amended Defence and Counterclaim, significantly altering the case's nature.
- •The Amended Defence included allegations of incorrect sums claimed, implied terms in the agreements, and breaches of the Claimants' Code of Conduct.
- •The Counterclaim alleged breach of contract by the Claimants, seeking declarations that the Claimants' actions were unlawful and that Defendants owed no fees.
- •Claimants consented to amendments to the Defence but objected to the Counterclaim.
Legal Principles
Test for permitting amendments to pleadings.
CPR 17.1(2)(b) and 20.4(2)(b), Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Another v Barclays Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 2212
Amendments should be allowed if they have a real (not fanciful) prospect of success and it is fair and just to allow them, considering proportionate costs.
Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Another v Barclays Bank Plc [2019] EWCA Civ 2212
Outcomes
Permission granted to file an amended pleading incorporating most of the Counterclaim.
The Counterclaim largely overlaps with the Amended Defence, adding minimal cost or complexity to the trial. The judge deemed it unnecessary to assess the merits of overlapping claims at this stage, particularly since the Claimants consented to the Amended Defence but not the Counterclaim.
Permission denied for parts of the Counterclaim alleging dishonesty and the incoherence regarding payment/repayment of fees.
Insufficient particulars were provided to support dishonesty allegations. The claims regarding payment/repayment were deemed legally incoherent and lacked reasonable prospects of success.
Similar Cases
Flitcraft Limited & Ors v Philip Price & Anor
[2024] EWCA Civ 136
Qatar Investment and Project Development Holding Co & Anor v Phoenix Ancient Art S.A. & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1916 (KB)
Steenbok Newco 10 Sarl & Anor v Formal Holdings Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1160 (Comm)
WOL (London) LLP v Croydon Investments Limited & Ors (Costs)
[2024] EWHC 485 (TCC)