Lawrence Miller v Experience Hendrix LLC & 2 Others and Another (Defendants/Applicants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Hodge |
| Judgment Date | 16 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2695 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC14E00826 & HC14F00827 |
| Date | 16 July 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2695 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
His Honour Judge Hodge QC
sitting as a judge of the High Court
Case No: HC14E00826 & HC14F00827
MR MILLER appeared in person
MS CLAIRE BLANCHARD QC (instructed by Eversheds LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants
Judge Hodge
In claim HC14E00826 the defendants are Experience Hendrix LLC, Mr Houston Reed Wasson and Miss Janie Hendrix. The second defendant, Mr Wasson, is the former in-house counsel to the first defendant limited liability corporation. The third defendant, Miss Janie Hendrix, is the first defendant's chief executive officer.
In the second claim, HC14F00827, the individual defendants are Mr Patrick J Gardiner and Mr Nicholas E Valner who are both solicitors and former partners in the third defendant limited liability partnership, Eversheds. Eversheds had acted as solicitors for Experience Hendrix LLC in earlier litigation.
Sadly, the second defendant in claim HC14F00827, Mr Nicholas Valner, passed away on Sunday 13 July 2014. Ms Claire Blanchard QC, who appears for the defendants and applicants, invites the court to direct, pursuant to CPR 19.8(1)(a), that claim HC14F00827 continue in Mr Valner's absence; and, pursuant to CPR 19.8(5), that it be declared that any judgment or order in claim HC14F00827 be binding upon Mr Valner's estate. I propose to make such orders if the defendants' applications are successful before me.
The two claims presently before the court are the sequel to two earlier claims in which Experience Hendrix LLC obtained summary judgment against the claimant, Mr Lawrence Miller, and his former company, Purple Haze Records Limited (to which I shall refer as PHL). PHL was dissolved in August 2006.
The first claim by Experience Hendrix LLC was heard by Hart J, sitting in the Chancery Division, on 24 February 2005. His judgment bears the neutral citation number [2005] EWHC 249 (Ch) and is reported at [2005] EMLR 18.
By his order, made on Experience Hendrix LLC's application for summary judgment against PHL and Mr Miller, Hart J held that PHL and Mr Miller had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that there was no other compelling reason why the claim should be disposed of at a trial. He declared (a) that Experience Hendrix LLC was entitled to the performer's property rights, including the reproduction and distribution rights, in two sets of live musical performances given by Jimi Hendrix in Sweden on 9 January 1969, (b) that no consent had been given by the claimant to the making or issuing to the public of copies of recordings of the Stockholm Performances by PHL and Mr Miller, and (c) that PHL and Mr Miller had infringed the claimant's reproduction and distribution rights by making and issuing to the public copies of recordings of the Stockholm Performances.
Hart J granted injunctive relief and made orders for the delivery up and forfeiture to Experience Hendrix LLC of all copies of recordings of the Stockholm Performances; and he directed either an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits, with payment to Experience Hendrix LLC of such sums (if any) as might be found due upon the taking of the inquiry or account, together with interest. For that purpose Hart J gave consequential directions.
Hart J gave permission to appeal to PHL and Mr Miller but the appeal was eventually struck out following various interlocutory orders made by Neuberger LJ, Jacob LJ, Lloyd LJ and Chadwick LJ.
The second claim was again by Experience Hendrix LLC. This time, in addition to PHL and Mr Miller, there was a third defendant, a Mr John Arthur Hillman. That claim related to the performance rights in a further nine compact disc recordings of concert performances by the late Jimi Hendrix. Again, Experience Hendrix LLC succeeded in obtaining summary judgment, on this occasion from Park J, on 3 May 2006. His judgment bears the neutral citation number [2006] EWHC 968 (Ch) and is reported at [2006] EMLR 25.
There was an appeal brought by Mr Hillman alone to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was dismissed on 24 May 2007. The neutral citation number of the Court of Appeal's judgment is [2007] EWCA Civ 501 and it is reported at [2008] ECC 9.
There matters rested until the latter half of last year. In or about July 2013 Mr Miller took delivery of some 43 cartons of documents from Harbottle & Lewis. They had acted as the solicitors for an entity, PPX Enterprises Incorporated, which had been the defendant to two earlier claims brought against them by Experience Hendrix LLC in which Experience Hendrix LLC had alleged breaches of a settlement agreement that had concluded earlier litigation concerning the performance rights in concert performances by the late Jimi Hendrix. It was as a result of Mr Miller's investigations into the contents of those cartons of documents that he formed the view that he could seek to have set aside the earlier judgments of Hart J and, consequently, Park J.
Initially, on 20 December 2013, Mr Miller issued an application notice in the proceedings that had been decided by Hart J seeking to allow him to reopen that case. The basis for his application was that Mr Miller had obtained an affidavit from a New York lawyer who had been the New York administrator of the estate of the late Jimi Hendrix and who had confirmed that the documents that Experience Hendrix LLC had relied upon to claim performance rights, with his signature upon them, was a fabrication and that the signature was not his. It was said to have been forged; and, further, that he would not have been legally able to sign the deed of assignment and assent dated 13 November 2000.
It was said that Experience Hendrix LLC and their in-house attorney had purposely deceived the court and perverted the course of justice. New evidence had been obtained that proved the fraud; and fraud, it was said, unravelled all. That application was supported by a witness statement from Mr Miller dated 19 December 2013 and a detailed skeleton argument from him. That application came before David Richards J on 16 January. Mr Miller appeared as a litigant in person. Upon the court noting that the correct or appropriate procedure to seek to set aside the judgment and order was by way of a new claim issued under part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court proceeded to dismiss the application. It was that that led Mr Miller to issue his two claims, 826 and 827, on 26 February 2014.
Claim 826 was said to be a claim to set aside the judgment and order of the late Hart J in February 2005. It was said that the claimant had obtained new evidence, in September or October 2013, that clearly proved that the defendants had invented false evidence to claim that they owned the performer's rights to the music of the late Jimi Hendrix. It was said that the defendants had deceived the court on three occasions and had perverted the course of justice.
After presenting the evidence before David Richards J, it was asserted that he had said that the correct or appropriate procedure was to seek to set aside the judgment by way of a new claim issued under part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which the claimant was now said to be doing. Reference was made to the two claims against the claimant and his company, PHL, in which Experience Hendrix LLC has claimed to own the performer's rights to the music of the late Jimi Hendrix. It was said that to obtain those judgments, the defendants had invented false evidence to deceive the court and pervert the course of justice. That claim was accompanied by detailed particulars of claim.
Claim number 827 was a claim against Mr Gardiner and Mr Valner of Eversheds alleging that they had unlawfully interfered in the claimant's business causing financial damage. The defendants were said to have contacted numerous clients of the claimant fraudulently claiming that their client, Experience Hendrix LLC, owned the performer's rights to the music of the late Jimi Hendrix. They were said to have utilised "invented false evidence" to deceive the court and pervert the course of justice on three occasions, in two claims against the claimant and his company PHL, and in earlier litigation, which was said to be nothing to do with Mr Miller, against PPX Enterprises Incorporated. It was said that the claimant had obtained new evidence in September and October 2013 that clearly proved that the defendants had used false and fabricated evidence to deceive the court and pervert the course of justice. The claimant was claiming damages and costs for the defendants unlawfully interfering with his business and reputation by making fraudulent claims based upon forged documentation. The client was said to have, and to have had, no rights as the defendants had fraudulently claimed. In both claims, the value of the claim is said to be £5 million, plus interest, damages and costs. Claim 827 was also accompanied by detailed particulars of claim.
On 28 May 2014 the defendants to both claims issued application notices seeking either summary judgment under CPR part 24, on the footing that Mr Miller had no real prospect of success on the entirety of his claim, or issues arising within the claim, and that there was no other compelling reason for the claim to be disposed of at a trial; or, alternatively, that Mr Miller's entire claim, or issues arising within it, be struck out as against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawrence Miller v Experience Hendrix Llc and Others (Defendants in claim HC14E00826)
...his business. Both Claims 826 and 827 were summarily dismissed by HHJ Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) on 16 July 2014: see [2014] EWHC 2695 (Ch). In his judgment ("the Hodge Judgment") Judge Hodge held that both Claims had no real prospect of success and that they were totally wit......
-
Lawrence Miller v Patrick J Gardiner and Another
...Mr Miller was seeking to impugn the 2000 Deed of Assignment, but considered his challenge to have no real prospect of success (see [2014] EWHC 2695 (Ch)). In the final paragraphs of the judgment, Judge Hodge said this: "94 Those are the submissions. I bear in mind the test to be applied on......