Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited v Noel Redding Estate Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 941 (Ch)
Moonbug Entertainment Limited v CCM Touring LLC & Anor
15 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 793 (Comm)
High Court
Two companies had a contract dispute. One company sued in England, the other in the US. The US company tried to stop the English case, saying it should be in the US. The English court said no, because the US company had already agreed to have the English case heard in England by their actions, and the two cases were about different issues. The US company also didn't have a good reason for being late in challenging the English court.
Key Facts
- •Moonbug Entertainment Ltd (Claimant) licensed CCM Touring LLC (Defendant 1) to produce CoComelon live tours.
- •The agreement included a clause (3.1) stipulating reversion of rights to Moonbug after 33 months if the tour hadn't meaningfully launched in a specific country.
- •Rights allegedly reverted to Moonbug in November 2023 for most countries except the US and Argentina.
- •Defendant 1 filed a claim in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (case no. 1:23-cv-07116) alleging Moonbug breached the agreement.
- •Defendants applied for an order to challenge jurisdiction, retrospectively extend time for a Part 11 application, and stay the English proceedings.
- •The Defendants filed an Acknowledgement of Service stating their intention to defend, but later attempted to challenge jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
CPR Part 11 governs jurisdiction challenges.
CPR Part 11
A defendant submitting to a court's jurisdiction cannot later dispute it.
Common Law
The Denton test applies when considering relief from sanctions for non-compliance with court rules.
Denton v TH White
Contractual governing law and jurisdiction clauses are generally enforced according to their terms.
Clause 8.3 of the Licence Agreement
A party cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing.
English Contract Law
Outcomes
Defendants' application to challenge jurisdiction was rejected.
The court found the claimant's claim was distinct from the US claim and that the defendants had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court through their actions.
The claim will proceed under the Shorter Trials Scheme.
The court determined that the claim was suitable for the scheme and that the defendants' actions created unnecessary delays.
The defendants' request for relief from sanctions was rejected.
The court found the defendants' delay substantial and their explanation insufficient. Additionally, justice did not require relief from sanctions given the expedited hearing.