Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Limited & Anor v Made Television Limited & Ors
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] EWHC 405 (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 an application by defendants in licensing-fee proceedings to file an Amended Defence and a Counterclaim in IPEC. The court permitted filing of parts of the Counterclaim that largely replicate matters pleaded in the Amended Defence but struck out or required deletion of unsupported allegations of dishonesty and legally incoherent allegations denying liability and seeking repayment. Directions were given for amendment, filing and costs.
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 a proposed Counterclaim largely duplicates matters already raised in an amended Defence and will be decided at trial, the court will permit pleading it if it adds little to cost or delay and is consistent with the overriding objective; however, allegations of serious misconduct (such as dishonesty) must be pleaded with sufficient particulars to have a real prospect of success, and legally incoherent claims (for example denying liability while accepting sums are payable elsewhere or seeking repayment without coherent basis) will be disallowed.
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 court observed that counterclaim declarations that merely replicate issues to be decided on the Defence provide limited additional benefit and are of doubtful value if the same findings can be obtained from the Defence alone. It also noted the court will scrutinise and refuse permission for internally inconsistent or incoherent pleaded positions.