Key Facts
- •Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited (Sony) sought permission to appeal a judgment in favor of Noel Redding Estate Ltd & Anor (Claimants).
- •The appeal concerned two grounds: performers' property rights and copyright claims.
- •The Claimants' case involved recordings from the 1960s, releases signed in 1973 and 1974, and alleged partnership agreements.
- •Sony argued that the performers' property rights claims were precluded by transitional provisions and that the copyright claim was time-barred.
- •The judge rejected both grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
- •The court also addressed costs, awarding 75% of the Claimants' costs to them.
Legal Principles
Performers' property rights claims under transitional provisions; whether current exploitation is 'in pursuance of' original consents.
Relevant transitional provisions (unspecified in the document)
Copyright claim based on partnership assets; time-barring under partnership dissolution principles.
Marshall v Bullock (unspecified citation in the document)
CPR 44.2 regarding costs allocation.
CPR 44.2
Costs allocation in summary judgment/strike-out applications; consideration of 'winner' and 'loser'.
Berezovsky v Abramovitch [2011] EWCA Civ 484 and [2010] EWHC 1511 (Comm)
Outcomes
Sony's permission to appeal denied.
The judge found no real prospect of success on either ground of appeal. The performers' property rights claim involved a difficult legal point better decided after factual determination at trial; the copyright claim was not properly characterized as a claim to partnership assets.
Claimants awarded 75% of their costs.
The Claimants were deemed the overall winners, having successfully defended the core copyright and performers' property rights claims. A reduction was applied to account for losses on minor issues.