Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2014] EWHC 2602 (QB) (28 July 2014)

Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2014] EWHC 2602 (QB) (28 July 2014)

The Master made no error of law in granting summary judgment, refusing permission to amend, or making the costs order. The Claimants lacked standing under the relevant agreements, the claims were hopeless, and the late amendment was unjustified. The interim costs order was within the Master's discretion and justified on the facts.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2602 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Radford; Claimant: The Michael Radford Partnership (A Firm); Defendant: Alejandra Frade; Defendant: Bruce St Clair; Defendant: Jose Frade; Defendant: Gheko Films SL; Defendant: Gheko Sur; Defendant: Workhorse Entertainment Limited; Defendant: Integral Films GmbH; Defendant: Subotica Limited; Defendant: Valentina Film Productions Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (application for Permission to Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal Summary Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings, Jurisdiction, Costs, Moral Rights, Assignment and Waiver of Rights, Entire Agreement Clauses
Civil Procedure Contract Law Intellectual Property Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings Jurisdiction Costs Moral Rights +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Radford

Claimant

The Michael Radford Partnership (A Firm)

Claimant

Alejandra Frade

Defendant

Bruce St Clair

Defendant

Jose Frade

Defendant

Gheko Films SL

Defendant

Gheko Sur

Defendant

Workhorse Entertainment Limited

Defendant

Integral Films GmbH

Defendant

Subotica Limited

Defendant

Valentina Film Productions Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (application for Permission to Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal Summary Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in granting summary judgment to the Fourth and Fifth Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the Master erred in refusing permission to amend the claim to add new causes of action
  3. 3 Whether the Master erred in his costs order, including interim payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Master made no error of law in granting summary judgment, refusing permission to amend, or making the costs order. The Claimants lacked standing under the relevant agreements, the claims were hopeless, and the late amendment was unjustified. The interim costs order was within the Master's discretion and justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on all grounds
  • No order overturning summary judgment or costs order