Noel Redding Estate Ltd & Anor v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal arises from an order made by Judge Green on 22 February 2024, dismissing an application by the Defendant ("Sony") to strike out or for summary judgment against the Claimants' claims concerning ownership and infringement of copyright and performers' rights in certain sound recordings. The Claimants assert that the band The Jimi Hendrix Experience ("JHE"), comprising Hendrix, Redding, and Mitchell, was a partnership which owned the copyrights in three studio albums recorded between 1967 and 1968. The Claimants claim to be successors in title to Redding's and Mitchell's shares of both copyright and performers' rights in those recordings. Sony, a sub-licensee of a licensee of the recordings, disputes certain aspects of these claims.

The Claimants commenced proceedings in February 2022, and procedural matters including a jurisdictional challenge delayed progress beyond disclosure. Sony's strike out/summary judgment application was heard in October 2023. The claims involve complex issues relating to the interpretation of historical agreements, statutory performers' rights introduced after the recordings were made, and the nature of partnership property and limitation periods.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Claimants' claim for infringement of performers' rights is precluded by transitional provisions in section 180(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and related regulations, given the original consent to recording and exploitation predating those provisions.
2. Whether the Claimants' copyright claim is statute-barred as a claim to partnership assets under section 23 of the Limitation Act 1980, requiring an action for an account within six years of partnership dissolution.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Sony)

• The performers' rights claims are barred by section 180(3) of the 1988 Act and related regulations because the alleged infringements were done pursuant to agreements and consents made before the relevant commencement dates, specifically the 1966 Agreement.
• The Claimants' copyright claims are claims to partnership assets and are therefore statute-barred under section 23 of the Limitation Act 1980, as the partnership dissolved on Hendrix's death in 1970 and the six-year limitation period has expired.
• No factual inquiry or detailed contractual construction is necessary to apply the transitional provisions; the original consent suffices to preclude infringement claims.

Respondents' Arguments (Claimants)

• The judge correctly held that there is a more than arguable case that the original consent to recording and exploitation does not extend to the present exploitation of performers' property rights, warranting factual inquiry.
• The Claimants reject that their copyright claim is a claim to partnership assets; instead, it is a claim for infringement with remedies including damages or account of profits, which are not subject to the limitation period applicable to partnership accounts.
• Additional grounds initially raised regarding the ultra vires nature of certain regulations and their implied repeal were abandoned or became redundant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Rickless v United Artists Corp [1988] QB 40	Performers could bring civil claims under the Performers' Protection Acts despite their criminal nature.	Established that performers' rights claims may have civil remedies prior to the 1988 Act.
Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd (No 2) [2007] EWCA Civ 501	Performers' rights under Part II of the 1988 Act may subsist even if the performer died before 1 August 1989.	Supported the assumption that performers' rights subsist in the recordings despite performers' deaths before the Act's commencement.
Marshall v Bullock (unreported, 27 March 1998)	Claims to partnership assets must generally be pursued by an action for an account within six years of dissolution.	Applied to reject Sony's contention that the Claimants' copyright claim is barred as a claim to partnership assets.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Gray [1994] STC 360	Partners have collective ownership of partnership assets externally; individual proprietary rights are limited internally by partnership deed.	Used to analyse the proprietary nature of partnership shares and to distinguish the Claimants' copyright claim from a claim to partnership assets.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused primarily on the interpretation and application of section 180(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which protects acts done pursuant to lawful arrangements made before the commencement of Part II of the Act from constituting infringement. The court rejected the appellant's argument that mere prior consent to recording and exploitation via vinyl records sufficed to preclude claims for infringement of performers' property rights under the expanded regime introduced later.

The court reasoned that the phrase "in pursuance of" requires a nexus between the allegedly infringing acts and the arrangements relied upon. The appellant's argument would allow infringement claims to be nullified even when the infringing acts were carried out by parties unconnected to the original arrangements, thus undermining statutory rights. Furthermore, the court clarified that section 180(3) is not concerned with exhaustion of rights and does not negate the need to consider the scope of any consent given by performers.

Regarding the copyright claims, the court found that the Claimants' claims are not barred by the limitation provisions applicable to partnership assets because they are claims for copyright infringement, not an action for an account of partnership assets. The court distinguished between ownership of partnership assets and the rights of joint owners of copyright, emphasizing that the legal title to the copyrights remains jointly owned by the successors in title of the former partners. The court relied on established principles distinguishing internal partnership rights from external ownership rights.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The effect of this decision is that the Claimants may continue to pursue their claims for infringement of performers' property rights and copyright in the recordings. The court confirmed that the transitional provisions in section 180(3) and related regulations do not preclude the Claimants' claims without a factual inquiry into the scope of consent. Additionally, the Claimants' copyright claims are not statute-barred as claims to partnership assets, allowing them to seek remedies for infringement rather than being limited to an action for an account. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.