Phonographic Performance Ltd v Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1963 |
| Year | 1963 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Contempt of Court - Civil contempt - Company, by - Failure to comply with order of civil court - Power to commit - Whether power to fine - Directors - Powers of court -
On February 12, 1963, an order was made in default of appearance against the defendant company restraining it, whether by its directors, servants or agents, from playing certain gramophone records in the defendant company's juke-boxes. The order was served on the defendant company on March 19, 1963, and on the directors of the company on April 18 and 20, 1963, but the defendant company continued to play the records. On June 12, 1963, the plaintiffs commenced this motion and a month later the defendants ceased to play the records. The court held that the defendants wilfully disobeyed the order dated February 12, 1963. On the questions (1) whether the court was bound to commit in the case of a civil contempt, (2) whether the court had power to commit the directors under R.S.C., Ord. 42, r. 31, which only provides for attachment and sequestration, and (3) whether there was power under R.S.C., Ord. 42, r. 31, to proceed against both the company and the directors:—
Held, (1) that in a case of a civil contempt the court was not bound to commit the contemnor but had power to impose a lesser penalty, namely, a fine.
(2) That although R.S.C., Ord. 42, r. 31,F1 referred to a writ of attachment, the court was enabled by R.S.C., Ord. 44, r. 2, to make a committal order under Ord. 42, r. 31, instead of issuing a writ of attachment.
(3) That under R.S.C., Ord. 42, r. 31, no proceedings for contempt could be taken against directors unless as in the present case proceedings could also have been taken against the company, but that where such circumstances existed proceedings could be taken against both the directors and the company.
MOTION.
Phonographic Performance Ltd., the plaintiffs, owned the copyright relating to the public performance of a large number of sound recordings of popular tunes and songs made by various well-known makers. Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd., the defendant company, owned juke-boxes which it placed, by arrangement with the proprietors, in suitable cafes and bars on a profit-sharing basis. The company played the plaintiffs' records in its juke boxes without obtaining the plaintiffs' licence to do so and in breach of the plaintiffs' copyright. On November 19, 1962, the plaintiffs issued a writ against the company calling upon it to obtain a licence, and this fact was known to at least one of the four directors of the company. On February 12, 1963, an order was made by Pennycuick J. in default of appearance restraining the company, whether by its directors, servants, agents, or otherwise, from infringing the plaintiffs' copyright by playing certain named records in public. The company was also restrained from playing any other records whose copyright was vested in the plaintiffs at the date of the issue of the writ. The order was served on the company on March 19, 1963, and on the directors individually on April 18 and 20, 1963, but the company continued to play both the named and the other prohibited records. On June 12, 1963, the plaintiffs launched this motion against the company and its four directors, by which they asked that the property of the company should be sequestrated and that the four directors should be committed to prison and their property sequestrated. The company and the directors eventually complied with the order one month later by cutting the wires on all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Chung Onn v Wee Tian Peng
- Shell E & P Ireland Ltd v McGrath (No. 2)
- Thorne Rural District Council v Bunting (No. 2)
-
WX v YZ
...of Staines County Ct., Jolly v. Jolly, [2000] 2 FLR 69, applied. (8) Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd., [1964] Ch. 195; [1963] 3 All E.R. 493, followed. (9) Star-Kist Foods Inc. v. Canada (Registrar of Trademarks)(1988), 20 C.P.R. (3d) 53; 18 C.I.P.R. 237, r......
-
RETHINKING THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT
...Sweet & Maxwell, 4th Ed, 2011) at para 3–1. 9[1972] 2 QB 52 at 70; citing Phonographic Performance Ltd v Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd[1964] Ch 195 at 198–199. 10 c 49. 11 Post-passage, the distinction was affirmed by the House of Lords in Peart v Stewart[1983] 2 AC 109 especially at 116......