The claimants sought declarations as to the ownership of copyrights to music fom Cuba. Many witnesses would be required to give evidence from Cuba. Attempts to take evidence by video link from Cuba had failed. It was suggested that the judge might travel to Cuba to take evidence as necessary, even though the claimant did not consent.
Held: The judge had power to appoint himself as a special examiner to take such evidence. The rule provided for no restriction on the identity of the special examiner, and the sitting of a special examiner would not constitute a trial as in the High Court. There was reason to expect consent from the Cuban government, and subject to that that is what the judge would do.
Judges:
Lindsay J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1048 (Ch), Times 02-Jun-2005
Links:
Statutes:
Civil Procedure Rules 34.13(4), Supreme Court Act 1981 71
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Peer International Corporation and Others v Termidor Music Publishers Ktd and Another ChD 11-Dec-2002
The claimant company had acquired the copyrights to the works of several Cuban musicians. A law later passed by Cuba in 1960 had allowed the musicians to re-assign their copyrights.
Held: A title to property which had been given by English law . .
See Also – Peer International Corporation Southern Music Publishing Company Inc Peermusic (UK) Limited v Termidor Music Publishers Limited Termidor Musikverlag Gmbh and Co Kg -And-Editoria Musical De Cuba CA 30-Jul-2003
Peer sought declarations that they were the owners, or licensees, of the UK copyright in musical works composed by Cuban nationals, relying on assignments in writing by the composers and in some instances by their heirs. The defendants claimed under . .
Cited by:
See Also – Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers Ltd and others ChD 16-Nov-2006
Claim for English copyright of Cuban musical scores. . .
See Also – Peer International Corporation and others v Termidor Music Publishers and others CA 23-Nov-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.225337