MCA Records Inc. and Another v Charly Records Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 1441,[2001] EWCA Civ 1923 |
| Docket Number | A3/2000/2110,Case No: A2/2000/2110 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 29 November 2001 |
In The Matter Of K Vintners Limited And In The Matter Of The Insolvency Act 1986
[2001] EWCA Civ 1441
Lord Justice Simon Brown
Case No: A2/2000/2110
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM MR JUSTICE RIMER
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr N Merriman QC & Mr A Sutcliffe QC (instructed by Messrs Fox Williams for the_Appellant, Mr Jean Luc Young)
Mr J Baldwin QC & Mr H Carr QC(instructed by Messrs Russells, London for the_Respondents)
LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK:
This is an appeal from an order made on 22 March 2000 by Mr Justice Rimer in copyright proceedings brought by MCA Records Inc and MCA Records Limited against Charly Records Limited, Charly International APS, Charly Holdings Inc, Mr Jean Luc Young and Charly Records (UK) Limited in relation to sound recordings known as "the Chess recordings". The claimants' title to copyright was conceded in the course of the trial; with the result that, in the event, the judge did not have to determine contested questions of ownership. The principal issue which he did have to decide was whether Mr Young was personally liable for acts of infringement by the first three corporate defendants. The judge found that Mr Young was liable in respect of the copying, and issuing to the public, of Chess recordings by Charly Records Limited. It is against that finding that Mr Young appeals to this Court. He does so with the permission of this Court (Lord Justice Morritt) granted on 13 June 2000.
MCA's claim to the Chess recordings
Although the claimant's title to copyright is no longer in issue, it is necessary to an understanding of the matters which the judge did have to decide – and which are raised on this appeal —that I first set out the background to the copyright dispute. MCA Records Inc is incorporated under the laws of the state of California. MCA Records Limited (now known as Universal Music (UK) Limited) is its United Kingdom subsidiary. MCA Records Inc manufactures and distributes sound recordings in which it owns copyright. MCA Records Limited manufactures and distributes sound recordings in the United Kingdom under licence from MCA Records Inc. Save where it is necessary to distinguish between them I shall refer to the claimants, together, as "MCA".
MCA claims to be entitled, as assignee, to copyright in all sound recordings listed in a monograph "The Chess Labels – a Discography" compiled by Michel Ruppli and published by Greenwood Press in 1983. The recordings were originally made over a period from 1947 to 1975. The judge described the position in paragraph 4 of his judgment:
"4. … These recordings were the creation of two brothers, Leonard and Philip Chess. They emigrated from Poland to the USA and their early activities in Chicago in the 1940s centred on the running of clubs which featured the popular musicians of the day. They soon realised that there was also a growing demand by their clientele for recorded music and so they turned their hands to its production. Between about 1947 and 1975 they produced thousands of records by jazz, blues, rhythm and blues, and rock and roll musicians, many by well known artists: for example, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters. The recordings became known as the Chess recordings."
The first owners of the copyright were the companies used by the Chess brothers as vehicles for their recording activities. Those companies were Aristocrat Recording Corporation (in respect of the period from 1947 to 1952), Chess Producing Corporation (from 1952 until 1968) and GRT Corporation Inc (from 1968 until 1975). GRT claimed to have acquired the copyright to the recordings produced by Aristocrat and Chess Producing Corporation. On 15 August 1975 GRT assigned its rights in all sound recordings made before 14 August 1975 to Platinum Records Inc, a company controlled by Mr Joe Robinson. In 1980 Platinum entered into Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and, with the approval of the court, merged with Sugarhill Records Limited, a New York company. MCA purported to acquire title to the copyright, initially under an exclusive distribution agreement made in 1983 with Sugarhill Records Inc, a New Jersey company and subsequently, in August 1985, under a confirmatory agreement from the New York company, Sugarhill Records Ltd. The chain of assignments and transfer from the first owners of the copyright, through the Sugarhill companies, to MCA is described by the judge in detail at sparagraphs 37 to 45 of his judgment. He concluded: "All in all MCA's title to the Chess recordings was less than perfect." Nevertheless, it was accepted that title was established; and the judge made a declaration to that effect in his order of 22 March 2000.
Charly Records' claim to the Chess recordings
The judge found that Mr Young had been engaged in the music industry since about 1963. In 1972 he established a Liechtenstein company, the name of which was changed in 1980 to Charly Holdings Aktiengesellshaft ("CHA"). Its role was to hold master sound recordings. In 1975 he established a company in the United Kingdom, Charly Music Limited ("CML"). Its role was to exploit the rights held by CHA. CML produced re-issues of sound recordings in the fields of blues, jazz, rhythm and blues and rock and roll.
Charly Holdings Inc ("Holdings") is a company incorporated in Panama. As the judge put it, at paragraph 33 of his judgment: "The beneficial ownership of Holdings is a mystery". Holdings was ostensibly administered from Zurich by M. Raymond-Claude Foex, an industrial and financial consultant, who claimed to be its chief administrator under a power of attorney granted by its directors who, as is not unusual where a company is incorporated in Panama but owned beneficially by persons not resident there, are Panamanian lawyers. The judge explained the position in these terms:
"33. … Mr Young denies knowledge of who its shareholders are. His only contact with Holdings is via Mr Raymond-Claude Foex … whom Mr Young has known since the 1960s. Mr Foex … says he is prevented by Swiss law from disclosing the identity of the shareholders, although it is improbable that Swiss law would prevent the shareholders from consenting to the revelation of their identity. Mr Foex is now in his 80s… . He professes no expertise in the music business."
In 1981 Mr Young sold most of CHA's catalogue, and CML's business, to Holdings, together with the right to use the Charly name. In the same year Holdings established two wholly owned subsidiaries, Charly Records Limited ("CRL") a company incorporated under the Companies Acts and Charly International APS ("International"), a Danish company. Mr Young assisted Holdings in establishing CRL, and was a director of that company from its incorporation until 21 December 1982. He remained an employee of CRL until 1996.
The judge explained the relationship between Holdings, International and CRL at paragraphs 34 and 35 of his judgment:
"34. … CRL's field of operation was the re-issue market: it acquired the right, by purchase or licence, to exploit pre-existing master sound recordings produced by others, mostly those created during the 1940s to the 1970s. It came to be regarded a successful independent company operating in this particular field.
35. The rights which Holdings acquired were sub-licensed to CRL. This was done via International, acting as Holdings' agent under an agency agreement evidenced by a letter dated 27 November 1981… . On 1 January 1982 CRL entered into a five year agreement with International whereby CRL obtained a sub-licence in respect of certain recordings owned by Holdings… ."
The agency agreement was subsequently extended for a further period, to 27 November 1992; and the sub-licence to CRL was extended to 30 June 1991. A further sub-licence was granted by International to CRL on 1 July 1991.
On 1 July 1987 Holdings entered into a licence with Red Dog Express Inc ("Red Dog") under which Red Dog purported to grant a non-exclusive worldwide licence to exploit the Chess master recordings. Red Dog was a company controlled by Mr Marshall Sehorn. Mr Sehorn (or his company) claimed title to the Chess recordings under a letter agreement dated 3 December 1976 from Mr Sehorn and countersigned by Mr Robinson, to whom I have already referred as the owner of Platinum Records Inc, but who was, at that time, trading under the name of Chess Records. The December 1976 letter purported to confirm that Mr Robinson was the sole and exclusive owner of the Chess master recordings listed in a schedule (Schedule A) and to grant Mr Sehorn a right in perpetuity to exploit those recordings. In the course of negotiating the 1987 licence from Red Dog to Holdings, Mr Young obtained a declaration from Mr Robinson confirming the 1976 licence to Mr Sehorn. The judge explained the position as to the July 1987 licence at paragraph 51 of his judgment:
"51. Despite the absence of the schedule A list, on 1 July 1987 Red Dog granted a non-exclusive worldwide licence to Holdings in respect of the exploitation of the Chess masters. Its term was 11.5 years, and sub-licensing was to be permitted. No title list was attached to it, but the arrangement was that Mr Sehorn would send schedule A over when he had returned to New Orleans. Mr Young said that Holdings was the chosen licensee since worldwide rights were being offered: he said that, had only UK rights been offered, the licence would have been taken by CRL. The licence was signed on Holdings' behalf by Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Omnibill (Pty) Ltd v Egpsxxx Ltd ((in Liquidation)) and Another
...the other circumstances. 45 I will follow that approach. 46 As regards joint liability, Mr Ward submitted that the test explained in MCA v Charly Records [2002] FSR 26 (the judgment of Chadwick LJ) should be 47 In order to analyse Mr Carter's position it is necessary to go into the facts i......
-
Markel International Insurance Company v Surety Guarantee Consultants Ltd and Others
...to placed on that side of the line where there is personal liability for the tort of procuring a breach of contract; cf MCA Records Inc v Charley Records Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 1441 at para. 47 as discussed in Contex Drouzhba v Wiseman [2006] EWHC 2708 at paras. 94–98 (per Irwin J.) 236 I ......
-
Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure; Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08)
... ... in favour of one citizen which bind another citizen; iii) national courts are obliged ... liabilities and that the claimants or others may seek to put pressure on their licensees not ... ...
-
Concept Oil Services Ltd (a company incorporated in Hong Kong) v EN-GIN Group LLP (a Ltd liability partnership under the law of Kazakhstan) and Others
...be infringements." 47 That judgment was applied and approved by Chadwick LJ (with whom Simon Brown and Tuckey LJJ agreed) in MCA Records Inc v Charly Records Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1441; [2002] FSR 26 at [31–36]. The principle which emerges from these cases is not dissimilar to that applicabl......
-
Case Analysis: Tangle v One For Fun
...issue), and that court's reference to Chadwick LJ's four principles arising in MCA Records Inc and anor v Charly Records Ltd and ors [2001] EWCA Civ 1441, as they affect intellectual property It was conceded that if the pleaded allegations were no more than stating the individual defendants......
-
Court Of Appeal Rules On Joint And Several Liability And Account Of Profits In Trade Mark Infringement Proceedings
...which was enough. As for directors' duties, Birss LJ referred to the first two (of four) principles in MCA Records Inc v Charly [2002] FSR 26: (i) a director will not be liable with the company if he/she does no more than carry out his constitutional role in the governance of the company; a......
-
REVISITING AUTHORISATION LIABILITY IN COPYRIGHT LAW
...88 As to the latter, see CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics plc[1988] AC 1013 at 1057–1058; MCA Records Inc v Charly Records Ltd[2002] FSR 26; and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v Newzbin Ltd[2010] FSR 21. An examination of the law on joint liability in tort is beyond the scope o......
-
TORTIOUS ACTS AND DIRECTORS
...manufacturing and selling activity could by itself make the director or officer personally liable for infringement by his company. 46[2003] 1 BCLC 93 at [37]. 47MCA Records Inc v Charly Records LtdUNK[2003] 1 BCLC 93 at [49]. 48 Though the context of Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin......
-
REVISITING THE ALTER EGO EXCEPTION IN CORPORATE VEIL PIERCING
...to asking the court to lift the company's corporate veil”: Jinsung Construction Co Ltd v Roko Trading Pte Ltd[2012] SGHC 50 at [31]. 128[2003] 1 BCLC 93. 129Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd[2013] 3 WLR 1 at [29]....
-
Case Comments: Directors' Co-liability for Delicts
...Court (at 52 in par [6]) agreed with the Court of Appeal’s exposition of four principles in MCA Records Inc v Charly Records Ltd ([2003] 1 BCLC 93 (CA) at 116-7 in pars [48] -[53]). Briefl y, they are the following:• First, it is a logical consequence of the proper recognition of the compa......