Hipgnosis Music Ltd v Mercuriadis & Ors [2024] EWHC 3127 (Ch) (05 December 2024)

Hipgnosis Music Ltd v Mercuriadis & Ors [2024] EWHC 3127 (Ch) (05 December 2024)

The claimant's formulation of Issue 22 was too granular and not compliant with the guidance in PD57AD and McParland; the first defendant's more concise formulation was approved. The first defendant's application for security for costs was premature but only modestly so; a 10% discount on costs was appropriate, and the first defendant was entitled to recover the majority of its costs.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3127 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hipgnosis Music Limited; First Defendant: Merck Mercuriadis; Second Defendant: Hipgnosis Songs Fund Limited; Third Defendant: Hipgnosis Song Management Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Business and Property Court Claim / Judgment on Reserved Issues Following CMC
Outcome
First defendant's formulation of Issue 22 approved; first defendant awarded majority of costs of security for costs application with 10% discount.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Security for Costs, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Company Law Disclosure Security for Costs Costs Assessment

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hipgnosis Music Limited

Claimant

Merck Mercuriadis

First Defendant

Hipgnosis Songs Fund Limited

Second Defendant

Hipgnosis Song Management Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Business and Property Court Claim / Judgment on Reserved Issues Following CMC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper formulation of Issue 22 for disclosure under PD57AD
  2. 2 Entitlement to costs of security for costs application

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's formulation of Issue 22 was too granular and not compliant with the guidance in PD57AD and McParland; the first defendant's more concise formulation was approved. The first defendant's application for security for costs was premature but only modestly so; a 10% discount on costs was appropriate, and the first defendant was entitled to recover the majority of its costs.

Court Disposition

First defendant's formulation of Issue 22 approved; first defendant awarded majority of costs of security for costs application with 10% discount.

Orders

  • Issue 22 for disclosure to be in the form proposed by the first defendant.
  • Claimant to pay first defendant £13,154.40 in costs of the security for costs application.