Peer International Corp & Ors v Editora Musical De Cuba

Peer International Corp & Ors v Editora Musical De Cuba

The trial judge did not err in law or misdirect himself in making no order as to costs. The judge was entitled to find that EMC, although successful overall, had unreasonably prolonged and lost a host of issues, many of which it had no standing to raise, thereby unnecessarily increasing the costs and length of the trial. The judge's approach to the allocation of costs, including his consideration of the conduct of the parties, the nature of the issues, and the test case context, was within the generous ambit of judicial discretion and did not produce a manifest injustice.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Peer International Corporation; Claimant/respondent: Southern Music Publishing Company Inc; Claimant/respondent: Peermusic (UK) Ltd; Part 20 Defendant/appellant: Editora Musical de Cuba
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs, Copyright Entitlement, Standing, Declaratory Relief, Restraint of Trade, Misrepresentation, Unconscionability, Undue Influence, Limitation
Civil Procedure Copyright Law Costs Copyright Entitlement Standing Declaratory Relief Restraint of Trade Misrepresentation +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peer International Corporation

Claimant/respondent

Southern Music Publishing Company Inc

Claimant/respondent

Peermusic (UK) Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Editora Musical de Cuba

Part 20 Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) on Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in law in making no order as to costs after the defendant succeeded in resisting the claim
  2. 2 Whether the judge misdirected himself in his approach to the allocation of costs, including the relevance of issues raised and lost, standing, and the conduct of the parties
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to address or misapplied principles relating to costs consequences for raising and failing on allegations of fraud or dolus

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in law or misdirect himself in making no order as to costs. The judge was entitled to find that EMC, although successful overall, had unreasonably prolonged and lost a host of issues, many of which it had no standing to raise, thereby unnecessarily increasing the costs and length of the trial. The judge's approach to the allocation of costs, including his consideration of the conduct of the parties, the nature of the issues, and the test case context, was within the generous ambit of judicial discretion and did not produce a manifest injustice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs as ordered by the trial judge