Phonographic Performance Ltd v John T/A Socialite Bar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Arnold |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3394 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HC-2013-000539 |
| Date | 20 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3394 (CH)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
The Rolls Building,
7 Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London,
EC4A 1NL
Mister Justice Arnold
Case No: HC-2013-000539
Mr Thomas St Quintin appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr Michael McAlinden appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is an application by the well-known collecting society, Phonographic Performance Ltd ("PPL"), for committal of Mr Brian John for breach of an order made, as it happens, by myself on 28 January 2014. That order prohibited Mr John from playing or authorising the playing in public of sound recordings within the PPL repertoire.
The background to the matter is that Mr John operates a bar in Muswell Hill called Socialite. Prior to commencing the present proceedings PPL made, as it frequently does, investigations of infringing public performances at Mr John's premises. Furthermore, PPL made efforts in correspondence to persuade Mr John to take a licence before infringement proceedings were commenced. Although Mr John made some staged payments by cheque, he did not in fact take a licence, and as a result proceedings were commenced on 20 August 2013. No response was received to the proceedings or any correspondence in connection therewith from Mr John, and accordingly on 7 January 2014 PPL issued and served an application for judgment in default. That application came before me on 28 January 2014 and I made the order to which I have already referred. The order included as well as the usual injunction a requirement for Mr John to pay PPL's costs in the sum of £1,690.60. The sealed order was served on 3 February 2014.
As a consequence of the failure to pay the past licence fees pursuant to a payment plan that had been agreed between PPL and Mr John and the failure to pay the costs he had been ordered to pay, PPL applied for and obtained a writ of fi.fa. on 11 March 2014. High Court enforcement officers were instructed to enforce the writ, but were only successful in recovering a small sum.
It subsequently came to PPL's attention that the injunction was not being complied with, and accordingly on 28 March 2015 the order was personally served on Mr John to ensure that he was fully aware of the order made by this court. Notwithstanding that, on 4 April 2015 an investigation agent instructed by PPL visited the premises and obtained evidence of sound recordings within the PPL repertoire being played in public. On 19 May 2015 PPL's solicitors wrote to Mr John warning him that a contempt application might be made, with the potential consequences. Nevertheless, even in the face of that warning, he failed to regularise his position. Accordingly, the present application was issued on 24 June 2015.
The matter came before the court on the first occasion on 28 July 2015, when Mann J made an order authorising service of the application by the steps that had already been taken by then and granted a representation order to Mr John. Furthermore, he made directions for the effective hearing of the application. In accordance with those directions, Mr John made and swore an affidavit on 28 August 2015 in which he candidly admitted the breach of the order, accepted responsibility for the breach and accepted that he must pay damages and costs. He also apologised to the court and to PPL. His counsel today has reiterated Mr John's admission and acceptance of responsibility and apology. All of those matters fall to Mr John's credit and will be duly taken into account.
Against that background, the only issue before the court so far as the question of breach of the order is concerned is one of sanction. As counsel for PPL rightly submitted, the present case is very similar to the case which I dealt with in Phonographic Performance Ltd v Fletcher [2015] EWHC 2562 (Ch). As in that case, the situation is one where, although the evidence that is specifically relied upon in support of the committal application only relates to breach of the order on one date, it is evident (not least from Mr John's own evidence) that there were breaches of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phonographic Performance Ltd v Stephen Gary Miller
...with Pumfrey J in PPL v. Reader [2005] EWHC 416 and moving on to Arnold J in PPL v. Fletcher [2015] EWHC 2562 (Ch) and in PPL v. John [2015] EWHC 3394 (Ch). In all those cases the person who was found to be in contempt, having failed to comply with the same sort of order as was made in this......