Kieran Hebden v Domino Recording Company Limited

Decision date: 19 January 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 74 (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

This was an amendment and summary-judgment application arising from Hebden's claim that Domino withdrew his sound recordings ("Masters") and thereby breached continuing release/exploitation obligations and an implied duty of good faith under their 2001 recording agreement. The court granted permission to amend to plead express or implied continuing exploitation obligations and an implied good-faith duty (finding those amendments had sufficient prospects to go to trial) but refused permission to add a restraint-of-trade/copyright-infringement alternative pleading as lacking real prospects and disproportionate. Because amendments were permitted, Domino's summary-judgment application was not decided at that hearing.

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

Where questions of contractual construction or implication raise complex factual and legal issues and the law is not sufficiently clear, the court will permit non-frivolous amendments that have more than merely arguable prospects to be tried rather than refuse them summarily; conversely, wholly speculative or tertiary claims with authorities and practical consequences showing very low prospects should be refused as disproportionate.

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 noted that a claim that a label must not refrain from publishing for oblique or malicious motives (an implied good-faith obligation of that form) is doubtful, would seldom arise, and would be difficult to prove; and that authorities on music-publishing assignments do not rule out the possibility that a recording contract might, in appropriate circumstances, be construed or supplemented by implied continuing exploitation obligations.