FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Ltd

Decision date: 17 May 2021

Neutral citation: [2021] EWHC 1316 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

FBT Productions sued Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution for unpaid sums; the court had to decide whether and how much interest to award on damages. The court held interest should be awarded, refused to apply a US borrowing rate despite the claimant being US, and — taking a pragmatic middle course on commencement date and rate — awarded £946.46. The claimant’s conduct did not justify withholding interest.

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: medium

Where damages are awarded in sterling the court may apply a UK basis for interest rather than a foreign borrowing rate even if the claimant is a foreign entity; and where precise allocation of when sums became payable is difficult for modest awards, the court may adopt a pragmatic middle course on commencement dates and rates.

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 indicated that commercial practice and comparator contractual terms (for example, periodic sales statements and payment within a set period) are relevant to assessing when sums became payable. The judgment also suggested that delay or aggressive claims by a claimant can be a factor in refusing interest, but do not automatically preclude an award.