Royalties in UK Law

To what use would the declarations sought by Peer be likely to be put? Peer could say that it simply wished to obtain them in order to be able to produce them to MCPS and hence to do no more than recover the fruits of the English copyright in the particular 13 songs.

For her to require confirmation of heirship for the purpose would not have been wrong, but to require a CCR even as to past royalties would, as I have already touched upon, in my view have been improper on her behalf.

To reduce the propensity to mislead, a tailored declaration, as it seems to me, would need to make it clear that it related (in some cases) only to 2007 or 2016, that it bound only as between EMC and Peer, that it was granted in proceedings in which the only opposing party was held in material ways to be bereft of locus standi and that there may be parties who would have locus who might wish to oppose Peer's claims to ownership and whose potential opposition to Peer, though not adjudged in these proceedings to be bound to be successful, has neither in fact been here ruled upon as hopeless.

The commercial background to the Agreement is that in March 2000 Dupont acquired a small Californian research and development company called Uniax Corporation, which then changed its name to Dupont Displays Inc. The business of Uniax consisted of the development of what is described as organic light-emitting display technology, which can be used to produce plastic and glass displays for a variety of purposes, including cellular telephones and portable computers.

84. In my view there are two fundamental factors that I must bear in mind in fixing the quantum meruit remuneration that Primus should receive for the service it provides in permitting calls originating from Orange to use its system. These are, first, that the remuneration must be reasonable in all the circumstances. Secondly, that the basis for calculation should be as simple as possible, so as to minimise the chances of future disputes over payments.

Fifthly, laches is an equitable doctrine, under which delay can bar a claim to equitable relief. Although I would not suggest that it is an immutable requirement, some sort of detrimental reliance is usually an essential ingredient of laches, in my opinion.

Although the judgment charge confers the same priority as an ordinary consensual equitable charge, it is a charge created in aid of the enforcement of the judgment. It can therefore be regarded as being not only a judgment but, in so far as it creates an automatic charge, part of the process of its own execution.