AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd: CA 1 Feb 1999

The copyright tribunal was given a wide discretion for the awarding of costs on applications made to it for licenses. The nature of the applications and the different basis makes it dangerous to import rules for awards from the general rules on costs. The Copyright Tribunal was wrong to award costs on an award to settle the terms of a license on the basis of costs following the event. The discretion and duties to allow for all factors were rather wider.
The court considered the approach to be taken on an appeal. Lord Woolf MR said ‘Before the court can interfere it must be shown that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach or has left out of account or has taken into account some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that his decision was wholly wrong because the court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale.’
The court considered the ability of an appellate court to review a decision of a first instance judge on matters with his discretion.
Woolf MR, Mummery LJ, Mantell LJ
Gazette 24-Mar-1999, Times 03-Mar-1999, [1999] 1 WLR 1507, [1999] EWCA Civ 834, [1999] 2 All ER 299, [1999] EMLR 335, [1999] CPLR 551, [1999] RPC 599
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 135D 135E
England and Wales
Appeal fromPhonographic Performance Ltd v AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd ChD 14-Jul-1997
An authorisation to broadcast sound recording included right to make back up tapes, but not to keep that back up beyond 28 days. Broadcasters are bound by an obligation to destroy copies of material which had been used for broadcast within 28 days . .

Cited by:
CitedBudgen v Andrew Gardner Partnership CA 31-Jul-2002
The defendant firm of solicitors appealed an order for costs against it based upon a percentage calculation. They sought an issues based costs order.
Held: Where there was insufficient information upon which to calculate an issues based costs . .
CitedPrice v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
CitedUniversity of East London Higher Education Corporation v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and others ChD 14-Dec-2004
The parties had litigated the sale of land free of restrictive covenants.
Held: The rule that a party was entilted to its costs of defending an action under the Act for the discharge of a covenant at least as far as was necessary for it to . .
CitedAgulian and Another v Cyganik CA 24-Feb-2006
The question was whether the deceased had lost his domicile of birth and acquired one of choice when living and working in the UK for 43 years. He had retained land in Cyprus, but lived here.
Held: He had retained his domicile of birth: . .
CitedK v Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust and Another QBD 30-May-2008
The claimant appealed against an order striking out his claim in negligence. He had leaped from a window in a suicide attempt. The accommodation was provided by the defendant whilst caring for him under the 1983 Act.
Held: The case should be . .
CitedSt Albans Girls School and Another v Neary CA 12-Nov-2009
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have . .
CitedShaw and Another v MFP Foundations and Piling Ltd ChD 6-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against a refusal to set aside statutory demands adjudicated due under the 1996 Act. They said that the judge had accepted that he was bound by MFO and that it was on all fours, but he had not followed it.
Held: The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 April 2021; Ref: scu.119308