Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Limited & Performing Right Society Limited vs Made Television Limited & Others

This case concerned a dispute over licensing fees and allegations of copyright infringement between the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society Limited (MCPS) and Performing Right Society Limited (PRS) against Made Television Limited and its affiliates.

TLDR:

• MCPS and PRS filed a lawsuit for unpaid licensing fees and copyright infringement.
• The Defendants sought to amend their defense and include a counterclaim.
• The court allowed the amendments to the defense but had reservations about the counterclaim.
• The case involved complex issues of licensing agreements and implied contractual terms.

The claimants, MCPS and PRS, are well-known collection societies that grant licenses for the use of copyrighted works. The defendants, Made Television Limited and its affiliates, operate local television stations and had entered into licensing agreements with the claimants. The dispute arose when the defendants allegedly failed to pay the agreed licensing fees.

The initial claims were straightforward debt actions for unpaid fees under the licensing agreements. The defendants contested the claims, arguing that the fees were not 'fair and proper' and breached the claimants' Code of Conduct. The case was transferred to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in October 2022, where the defendants sought to amend their defense and include a counterclaim.

In their amended defense, the defendants alleged that the sums claimed by the claimants were incorrect and that the licensing fees should reflect the actual use of the licensed works. They also argued that the licensing agreements included implied terms requiring the claimants to follow their Code of Conduct and ensure that fees were proportionate and not arbitrary.

The defendants' counterclaim alleged that the claimants breached their contractual obligations by not negotiating effectively and treating other local TV stations differently. They sought declarations that the claimants had breached the implied terms and were not entitled to any licensing fees.

The court had to consider whether to allow the amendments to the defense and the inclusion of the counterclaim. The claimants consented to the amendments to the defense but objected to the counterclaim, arguing that it had no real prospect of success and would complicate the case.

Recorder Amanda Michaels allowed the amendments to the defense, noting that the issues raised would be considered at trial. However, she had reservations about the counterclaim, particularly the allegations of dishonesty and the inconsistent claims regarding the payment of fees. She concluded that the counterclaim should be permitted only to the extent that it mirrored the points raised in the amended defense.

The court emphasized the importance of conducting litigation fairly and justly, considering the costs and benefits of allowing the amendments. The decision highlighted the need for clear and coherent pleadings, especially in complex cases involving multiple issues.

Legal representatives: James Segan KC (instructed by Simpkins & Co LLP) for the claimants, Nick Zweck (instructed by Archer, Evrard & Sigurdsson LLP) for the defendants.

Judicial Panel: Recorder Amanda Michaels

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWHC 405 (IPEC)