header-logo header-logo

04 November 2016
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Copyright

Phonographic Performance Ltd v CGK Trading Ltd and others [2016] EWHC 2642 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 177 (Oct)

The Chancery Division held that the third defendant (K), who was the designated premises supervisor of a nightclub in Essex, was liable to the claimants, Phonographic Performance Ltd and Performing Rights Society Ltd, for authorising and procuring infringement of their copyrights as a result of the unlicensed playing of sound recordings at the nightclub. The court held that irrespective of whether or not K had been present at the club at the relevant time or whether or not she had approved lists of songs to be played, the relevant act was engaging the performers and, on the evidence, K had been carrying out a managerial role at the club, and her responsibilities had extended to authorising and procuring the performance of music at the club.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll