Robin George Le Strange Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Arnold |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch) |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Docket Number | Case No.HC08C02082 |
| Date | 27 July 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Royal Courts of Justice
Mr. Justice Arnold
Case No.HC08C02082
THE CLAIMANT appeared in person.
MR. A. NORRIS (instructed by BBC Legal) appeared on behalf of the First and Fourth Defendants.
MS. L. LANE (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) appeared on behalf of the Second and Third Defendants.
Introduction
This is the latest in a series of cases in which an individual who has submitted proposals for television game show formats to television broadcasters and/or production companies on a speculative basis subsequently claims that his proposals have been copied in a broadcast programme or series.
In the present case the claimant, Robin Meakin, describes himself as a semi-retired graduate of business operations and manufacturing systems with a background in a number of business sectors including the media. Mr. Meakin alleges that the defendants have infringed his copyright in three proposals entitled respectively Cash Call Millions … Live! revision 3 ("CML3"), Cash Call Millions … Live! revision 4 ("CML4"); and Cash Call Challenge … Live! ("CCL"). Mr. Meakin also alleges that the defendants have used the information contained in his proposals in breach of obligations of confidence.
The principal object of Mr. Meakin's complaint is a programme entitled Come and Have a Go … If You Think You Are Smart Eenough ("CHG" or occasionally "CAHAG"). Two series of six and ten episodes, presented respectively by Nicky Campbell and Julian Clary, were broadcast by the first defendant, the British Broadcasting Corporation, between 4 April 2004 and June 2005. Mr. Meakin also complains about an entry on the BBC website describing CHG.
In addition to those complaints, Mr. Meakin complains about two unrelated games and a television programme said to have been developed and/or marketed by the third defendant, Celador Productions Ltd ("Celador").
As well as the BBC and Celador there are two other defendants. The second defendant, Paul Smith, was at all relevant times the Managing Director of Celador. The fourth defendant, Martin Scott, is an employee of the BBC and an ex-employee of Celador.
Mr. Meakin first complained to the BBC by letter dated 14 July 2004. After intermittent correspondence over the next four years, he commenced these proceedings on 22 July 2008. To date the claims have not progressed very far. This is for a variety of reasons, including the proceedings being stayed for a period (for reasons which it is unnecessary to go into) and the pendency of the applications presently before the court.
Although Mr. Meakin has consulted a number of solicitors and barristers with a view to obtaining legal representation, if possible on a CFA basis, he has not been successful. Presently, as for most of the proceedings, he is acting in person. I have borne that fact in mind in considering the present applications, and I have also taken into account the fact that he suffers from the disadvantage of being somewhat hard of hearing. On the other hand, Mr. Meakin has been able to submit two substantial and detailed witness statements on the present applications and a 45 page skeleton argument replete with references to numerous authorities.
The applications
There are three applications presently before the court. First, an application by the BBC and Mr. Scott, by application notice dated 5 March 2010, for summary judgment dismissing the claims against both those defendants for copyright infringement, and all claims made against Mr. Scott personally. Secondly, an application by Mr. Smith and Celador, by application notice dated 5 March 2010, for summary judgment dismissing all claims for copyright infringement against those defendants, an order striking out the claims for breach of confidence in relation to the unrelated games and programme, and an order striking out miscellaneous allegations made by Mr. Meakin in a response to a request for further information. The third application is an application by Mr. Meakin, by application notice dated 16 June 2010, for an order for specific disclosure, an order for third party disclosure, for permission to amend his particulars of claim, and finally to strike out certain paragraphs of the defences.
Mr. Meakin subsequently exhibited to his third witness statement a further draft amended particulars of claim dated 16 July 2010. Although I had understood that Mr. Meakin was seeking permission to make those amendments at this hearing, he explained to me this morning that in fact he wanted more time to consider and finalise the draft. Accordingly, I proceed on the basis that, subject to a couple of points I will mention later, his application is to amend his particulars of claim in accordance with the draft dated 16 June 2010 attached to his application notice.
Applicable principles
Since the principal applications before me are for summary judgment under CPR rule 24.2, it is appropriate to remind myself of the applicable principles. They were summarised by Lewison J in JD Wetherspoon plc v. Van de Berg & Co. Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1044 (Ch) at [4] as follows:
"i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a 'realistic' as opposed to a 'fanciful' prospect of success: Swain v. Hillman [2001] 2 All ER 91;
ii) A 'realistic' claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8];
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not conduct a 'mini-trial': Swain v. Hillman;
iv) This does not mean that the court must take at face value and without analysis everything that a claimant says in his statements before the court. In some cases it may be clear that there is no real substance in factual assertions made, particularly if contradicted by contemporaneous documents: ED & F Man Liquid Products v. Patel at [10];
v) However, in reaching its conclusion the court must take into account not only the evidence actually placed before it on the application for summary judgment, but also the evidence that can reasonably be expected to be available at trial: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550;
vi) Although a case may turn out at trial not to be really complicated, it does not follow that it should be decided without the fuller investigation into the facts at trial than is possible or permissible on summary judgment. Thus the court should hesitate about making a final decision without a trial, even where there is no obvious conflict of fact at the time of the application, where reasonable grounds exist for believing that a fuller investigation into the facts of the case would add to or alter the evidence available to a trial judge and so affect the outcome of the case: Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd. v. Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63;
vii) The court should be especially cautious of striking out a claim in an area of developing jurisprudence, because in such areas decisions on novel points of law should be decided on real rather than assumed facts."
As for the applications to strike out, CPR rule 3.4(2) provides:
"The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court—
(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; …"
Mr. Meakin's proposals
CML3 is a one-and-a-half page document, the first and principal page of which consists of a flow-chart bearing a copyright notice in his name. Mr. Meakin sent CML3 to Colman Hutchinson of Celador under cover of a letter marked "private and confidential" dated 4 November 2002, which he posted on 5 November 2002. On 27 November 2002, Mr. Hutchinson wrote to Mr. Meakin saying that the idea did not have sufficient appeal to make Celador want to proceed further.
CML4 is a 17 page document bearing a copyright notice in the name of Mr. Meakin on the front cover, and marked "private and confidential" on every page. Mr. Meakin submitted this to Zeal Television Ltd. ("Zeal") on 30 April 2003. On 27 May 2003 Zeal wrote to Mr. Meakin saying it was unable to take things further.
CCL is a seven page document bearing a copyright notice in the name of Mr. Meakin on most of the pages. Mr. Meakin submitted this to the BBC on 29 September 2003. Richard Mears of Format Development Entertainment in the BBC wrote to Mr. Meakin on October 2003 acknowledging receipt but saying the BBC had a large backlog of proposals to consider. It is common ground that the BBC never in fact sent Mr. Meakin a substantive response to his proposal. The BBC's evidence is that this was, in all probability, a simple oversight.
Mr. Meakin's claim
The gist of Mr. Meakin's case in these proceedings is shortly summarised in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his particulars of claim as follows:
"6. The Claimant's works were the first to suggest that contestants at home and in the studio might use their telephones and/or other interactitivy to build cumulative scores to win a prize in a live television quiz.
7. The alleged infringing format co-produced and transmitted by the BBC, 'Come and have a go if you think you're smart enough!' (hereafter 'CHG') was described by the co-executive producer, Miram...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain v Erwin Clausen and Another
...to claim copyright in, say, what would in reality amount to a TV format. This has been held to be arguable, see Robin George Le Strange Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation [2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch), at [30]. Each case will turn on its facts. But to succeed a claimant would still have to ......
-
Technomed Ltd and Another v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd and Another
...Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 247 per Mummery LJ at para 124. On this point, she also referred me to Arnold J's judgment in Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporations and Ors [2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch), a case about television formats, in which Mr Meakin's copyright infringement claim was held to ha......
-
Banner Universal Motion Pictures Ltd v Endemol Shine Group Ltd and Others
...exist in the Minute Winner Document, I should adopt the same approach and reach the same conclusion as had Arnold J in Meakin v BBC [2010] EWHC 2065 (Ch), namely that there are insufficient similarities between the two formats to give rise to any real prospect of success on infringement. An......
- The New Straits Times Press (M) Bhd v Admal Sdn Bhd