Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd
Decision date: 3 October 2014
Neutral citation: [2014] EWHC 3087 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This was a damages inquiry after the court held that Henderson owned performer’s rights in the vocal on “Heartbroken” and that All Around the World unlawfully copied and released it without licence. The judge modelled a hypothetical licence and awarded £30,000 as user-principle (6% artist royalty) and a further £5,000 under Regulation 3/Article 13(1)(a) for unfair profit/promotional loss, for a total of £35,000. Claims for an account of profits, broader moral prejudice, PPL amendment and additional damages under s.191J(2) were refused or struck out. The judge rejected an account of the defendant’s profits and limited awards for non-economic harm.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The judgment indicates that Article 13/Regulation 3 remedies are generally alternative to conventional damages and that a claimant will not automatically recover both damages and an account of the defendant’s profits; courts should model a hypothetical negotiation at the date of release to assess user-principle damages, taking realistic bargaining positions and available non-infringing alternatives, and award additional sums under Article 13(1)(a) only where damages would be inadequate (including limited instances of moral prejudice).
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judge commented (obiter) on practical factors relevant to the hypothetical licence (parties’ bargaining strength, feasibility of re-recording by a session singer, and the promotional value of artist credit), cautioned against ordering costly independent audits in IPEC where disclosure suffices, and suggested s.191J(2) should be read in light of Article 13/Regulation 3, which may narrow previous approaches to “flagrancy” and additional damages.