Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE WINN |
| Judgment Date | 25 October 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J1025-2 |
| Date | 25 October 1965 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1965] EWCA Civ J1025-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr Justice Waller
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Danckwerts and
Lord Justice Winn
MR DAVID C. HIRST, Q. C. and MR LEON BRITTAN (instructed by Messrs Rubenstein Nash & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
The Hon. T. G. ROCHE, Q. C. and MR MICHAEL KEMPSTER (instructed by Messrs Richards Butler & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
To understand this case I must first outline the life of Michael Chaplin. I take most of it from a book which is before us in page proof. He is the son of a rich and famous father, Charles Chaplin, who has been an actor in films and a producer. Michael was born in California on the 6th March, 1946. So he is now only 19. His father is 76. Michael is the second of the eight children of his father and mother. His first six years were spent in the luxury of the family home in Hollywood. Then they came to Europe and settled near Vevey in Switzerland where they had a large establishment. As a small boy Michael went for a time to a day school. Afterwards to a boarding school in Switzerland for three or four years. Then to school where boys were specially coached. His parents took him on a world tour. They took him on a fishing holiday to Ireland. They did all they could for him. Then at the age of 16 he came on his own to London. He went to one or two educational establishments here for a short time but has done little else. In his own words: "Since the age of about 16 I have been impatient of the benefits, conventions and obligations of life at home with my parents and have eked out a Bohemian existence in London". At the age of 18 whilst on a visit to Spain he wished to get married to Patrice Johns, a girl who was a few years older than himself. But he could not marry without his father's consent. His father refused because he had no job. The couple came back and went to Scotland and got married there. They had no money and a child to support. At the end of March 1965, when he was just 19, he got National Assistance for his wife, the child and himself. This received wide publicity. Then on the 5th April, 1965, this statement by his mother appeared in the London newspapers: "Concerning my son, Michael Chaplin. The young man is a problem and I am sorry he was given National Assistance. He has studdornly refused an education for three years and therefore he should get a job and go to work. If I do not wish toindulge him as a Beatnik, that is my privilege. Sincerely, Oona Chaplin".
These incidents provoked an enthusiastic response from those who saw the opportunities which they afforded. Michael Chaplin was offered financial inducements on all bands. His Bohemian life had become a source of profit. Some wanted him to sing and make records. He was offered and accepted a cont tract as a pop-singer to make a record entitled: "I am what I am". Others wished to make a film. Yet others to make a book of his life. Amongst them were Mr Merrin, a journalist, and Mr Hamblett, an author and journalist, both of whom had done work concerning the young people of today. They introduced him to Mr Leslie Frewin, a publisher. Michael Chaplin tells us in his affidavit what they said to him and it is not contradicted. Mr Hamblett said: "I think you have a very good story in you. If the book was written, you could show it to your father and mother and they would be proud of it and it might help them to understand the things that have gone wrong with your life". Mr Frewin said: "You can write the sort of book that your father can read and be proud of you. The book will not be the sort of thing that you will be ashamed of later".
No time was lost. On the 17th April, 1965, two contracts were signed. The upshot was this. Michael Chaplin was to tell his life story to the two journalists, Mr Merrin and Mr Hamblett. They were to write it up in the form of a book. And Mr Frewin's Company, Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Limited. were to publish it. The publishers were to pay Mr and Mrs Chaplin a royalty on all sales (10 per cent, on the first 7,500 copies and so forth). Mr and Mrs Chaplin were to pay to the two journalists a percentage of all they received (40 per cent, on the first £4,000 and so forth). Mr and Mrs Chaplin were to receive £500 cash down in advance of royalties. But 40 per cent, of it went at once to the two journalists. So the publishers drew a cheque for £300 in. favour of Mrs Chaplin and£200 in favour of Mr Merrin. Mr Frewin told Mr and Mrs Chaplin on two occasions that they ought to have independent legal advice but they did not do so. This was foolish of them; but in the young, it is the sort of foolishness which the law is ready to forgive.
I must here draw attention to one or two specific provisions in the two contracts:
(1) The first contract (dated 9th April, 1965, an error for the 17th) was made between Mr and Mrs Chaplin (called the proprietors) and Mr Hamblett and Mr Merrin (called the writers). The writers were to write the personal life story of Michael Chaplin in book form ready for press by the 3lst May, 1965. Clause 3 said that "the said work shall be subject to the approval of the proprietors (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld) and shall not be submitted to any publisher or editor until the proprietors have signified their approval by signing one copy of the text". Clause 4 said that "The copyright of the said work shall be the property of the proprietors".
(2) The second contract (dated 17th April, 1965) was made between Mr and Mrs Chaplin (called the author) and Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Limited. (called the publishers). Clause 1 provided that "The publishers shall during the legal term of copyright have the exclusive right of producing, publishing and selling the said work in volume form in any language throughout the world". Clause 2 provided that: "The author warrants that he is the owner of the copyright in the said work…and that it contains nothing of an objectionable, libellous, obscene, indecent or defamatory nature, and that the author and his legal representatives shall and will hold the publishers harmless from and indemnify them" against all claims made upon them in consequence of any breach of this warranty.
As soon as the contracts were signed, things moved fast. For the next fortnight Michael Chaplin had long sessions withMr Hamblett telling him the story of his life. Mr Hamblett took notes. Mr Merrin came sometimes too. In just over a fortnight the book was in typescript. There were only two copies. The publishers sent one copy to the printers. The other to their solicitors so that they could read the book for libel. On the 10th May, 1965, the solicitors wrote to the publishers drawing attention to several passages which might be defamatory of various people, including Mr Charles Chaplin senior, adding that other passages might be hurtful, if not very harmful, to him.
By the middle of June 1965 the galley proofs were ready and Mr Frewin showed them to Mr and Mrs Chaplin, together with the solicitor's letter. He told them that any alterations they fished would be incorporated in the page proof. He also told them that the alterations suggested by the solicitors would be incorporated. In the middle of July, 1965, Mr and Mrs Chaplin showed the galley proofs to one or two friends who expressed their disapproval of the book. This roused Mr and Mrs Chaplin to action. They told the publishers that they took serious objection to several passages in the book, to its style and other matters. In consequence the publishers arranged a meeting at which amendments could be made. Over two days there were long meetings with the publishers' representatives at which a number of small amendments were made and at the end on the 2lst July Mr and Mrs Chaplin signed this certificates "This is to certify that we have today, July 2lst, read this proof copy of 'I couldn't smoke the grass on my father's lawn' and pass the full text for publication with the omissions and amendments noted on this copy".
A few days later on the 28th July Mr Chaplin was short of money again. He telephoned Mr Frewin who gave him a further cheque for £100 advanced against his royalties.
Three or four weeks later Michael Chaplin went to solicitors, I think for the first time, and showed them the page proofs. They wrote on the 26th August, 1965, to the publishers and claimed to avoid the agreement of the 17th April, 1965. Theysaid: "On behalf of our client, who is a minor, we hereby give you notice of his avoidance and consequent repudiation of the agreement and also all rights purported to be granted to you under it…The copy of the page proofs which we have seen contains matter which is defamatory of our client and of other persons either named or easily identifiable in the book. It contains statements of fact which are incorrect and implies that our client holds views which he emphatically does not.
In his affidavit in these proceedings Mr Michael Chaplin states his objections to the book, after taking advice:- "It shows me", he says, "as a depraved creature content, apparently, to broadcast my failings to the world and for gain; it contains many factual inaccuracies, it indicates a debased, cynical and irresponsible approach to life and an attitude towards specific incidents that is not true of me. Also I am advised by my solicitors and verily believe that the book is libellous of a number of people. It is certainly very unpleasant in many places. It is written in a style which is not mine and which meets with my disapproval… I think and I am advised as aforesaid that the book comprises breaches of this warranty". Having read the book, I think there is substance in those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v Brooker
...of copyright by a minor is, to say the least, controversial. On the one hand, there is Lord Denning's dissentingjudgment in Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1966] Ch 71, 89 where he observed: "The law of this country for centuries has been that if anyone under the age of 21 makes,......
-
JHP Ltd v BBC Worldwide Ltd and Another
...the copyright) where both related to a single creation. 14 Ms Mulcahy resisted this conclusion by reference to authority. (a) In Chaplin v Frewin [1966] Ch 71 it was agreed that the publishers should during the legal term of the copyright have the exclusive right of producing, publishing......
-
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd
...difficulty and avoids the need to join those who would have remained legal owners but for the operation of that section. ( Chaplin v Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1966] 1 Ch 71, 96–96 (cited by Vos J [33]). Section 91, like its predecessor, vests legal title in the assignee as soon as tha......
-
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd
...prospectively entitled to copyright by virtue of such an agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) …" Authorities 32 In Chaplin v. Leslie Frewin (Publishers) Ltd [1966] 1 Ch 71, an infant aged 19 and his adult wife entered into two agreements, the first with two journalists to write an "a......
-
The Transfer of Moveables in Scotland and England
...will, with the result that both legal acts should be voidable and not only the contract. In an English case, Chaplin v Leslie Frewin,9696[1966] Ch 71 at 90. See also Treitel, Contract (n 34) 549. Lord Denning MR addressed the same issue in the context of a minor who had assigned his At any ......