Panayiotou and Others v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date21 June 1994
Date21 June 1994
CourtChancery Division

Chancery Division

Before Mr Justice Jonathan Parker

Panayiotou and Others
and
Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd

Competition - European law - whether recording contract distortion

No distortion of EC competition

A claim under article 85 of the EEC Treaty had to be on the basis that an agreement between undertakings, as it affected trade between member states had, as its object or effect, the restriction or distortion of competition in the common market.

In that context, an agreement which was made in 1988 between Georgios Panayiotou, professionally known as George Michael, and the CBS group of record companies, whose recording business was taken over by the Sony group at about the same time, for the delivery by him of eight albums of his music over a long period, was not an agreement affecting trade between European member states nor was it one which had as its object the distortion of competition in the common market.

Mr Justice Jonathan Parker so held in the Chancery Division in a reserved judgment after a hearing of 74 days between October 1993 and in April 1994.

Mr Mark Cran, QC, Mr Jeremy Lever, QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini and Mr Ian Mill for George Michael; Mr Gordon Pollock, QC, Mr David Unwin, Mr Vernon Flynn and Mr Peter Duffy for Sony.

MR JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER said that George Michael was claiming against the Sony Group that the agreement in 1988 for the delivery of eight albums of records over a period of time was void or unenforceable because it was an unreasonable restraint of trade and was in any event rendered void by article 85(2) of the EEC Treaty, directed at maintaining freedom of competition within the common market.

Restraint of trade

On the restraint of trade issue it had to be borne in mind that the 1988 agreement was a renegotiation of an agreement made in 1984; that by 1988 George Michael was already an established artist and that the essence of the renegotiation was a substantial improvement in the financial terms in exchange for additional albums.

In any event, his Lordship concluded that it was not open to the plaintiff to challenge the 1988 agreement on the ground of restraint of trade because:

1 There was a public interest in enforcing agreements reached by way of compromise of disputes. The 1984 agreement was such a compromise and as the 1988 agreement was a renegotiation of the 1984 agreement, the same applied.

2 It would be unjust to Sony if the 1988 agreement were treated as unenforceable or void because: (i) George Michael at all times had expert legal advice from Russells and was well aware of the doctrine of restraint of trade; (ii) Sony had agreed to bring forward dates of various payments for tax reasons...

To continue reading

Request your trial
100 cases
  • John Robert Charman v Beverley Anne Charman
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 Diciembre 2006
    ...should differ according to whether he is in England and Wales or abroad. Both sides agree upon that. Indeed, in Panayiotou v. Sony Music Entertainment (U.K.) Ltd [1994] Ch 142, "the George Michael case", at 152c, Sir Donald Nicholls V.-C. upheld that proposition. Thus the principles determi......
  • Wicks v Wicks
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 Diciembre 1997
    ...of any sale. It seems to be purely procedural in its intent and in its effect. I agree with Sir Donald Nicholls V. C in Panayiotou -v- Sony Music Ltd. [1994] Ch. 142, 149 when he said:— "These rules (the RSC) regulate and prescribe that the "practice and procedure" to be followed in the Sup......
  • Mark Byers v Samba Financial Group
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 8 Abril 2020
    ...outcome. The argument is advanced that the court has inherent jurisdiction to issue such a letter, and the case of Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd [1994] Ch 142 is cited as 66 Panayiotou is a case concerned with seeking the production of specified documents from a foreign comp......
  • S v S (Matrimonial Home: Interim Order for Sale)
    • United Kingdom
    • Family Court
    • Invalid date
    ...1 AC 368, [2002] 2 WLR 919, [2002] 2 All ER 949, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 641, [2002] BCC 673, [2002] CLC 1140. Panayiotou v Sony Music Ltd [1994] Ch 142, [1994] 2 WLR 241, [1994] 1 All ER 755, [1994] ILPr 241, Short v Short [1960] 1 WLR 833, [1960] 2 All ER 6. Tanfern Limited v Cameron MacDo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
4 books & journal articles
  • CONTRACT LAW IN COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES: UNIFORMITY OR DIVERGENCE?
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2019, December 2019
    • 1 Diciembre 2019
    ...151 CLR 447)). … 24 We would respectfully endorse the approach taken by Parker J in [Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Limited [1994] EMLR 229] as briefly outlined above. It is important, however, to emphasise that this does not entail the adoption of a broader doctrine of unconsci......
  • United Kingdom
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Obtaining Discovery Abroad. Third Edition
    • 8 Diciembre 2020
    ...at n. 34.21.7. 88 . Penn-Texas Corp. v. Murat Anstalt (No. 2) [1964] 2 QB 647 at 663 (Eng.); Panayiotou v. Sony Music Entm’t (UK) Ltd. [1994] 1 All ER 755 (Ch.) at 763-764 (Eng.). This is the practice followed in relation to witness summonses under English procedure. 89 . TSOL GUIDE, supra ......
  • Popular Names Index to UK Cases and EU Legislation and Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Legal Research. A Practitioner's Handbook - 3rd Edition Appendices
    • 30 Agosto 2019
    ...Leahy Music Ltd v Lightbond Ltd, 21 March 1991 [1993] EMLR 144 (Ch) Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd, 21 June 1994 [1994] EMLR 229 (Ch) Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (UK) Ltd, 15 July 1993 [1994] Ch 142 (Ch) Ginger Beer Bottle Case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 GL......
  • SELECTED CASE LAW DEVELOPMENTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1995, December 1995
    • 1 Diciembre 1995
    ...Comptoir d’Escompte de paris(1890) 38 WR 763, at p 764. 101 Which concerns the production of documents only. 102 Ie, forms 74—76. 103 [1994] 1 All ER 755. 104 Ibid, at p 672. 105 (1890) 38 WR 763. 106 Ibid, at p 764. 107 Ibid, at p 765. 108 Ibid. 109 [1994] 3 All ER 545. 110 In the U.K. rul......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT