McPhail & Anor v Bourne & Anor [2008] EWHC 1235 (Ch) (06 June 2008)

McPhail & Anor v Bourne & Anor [2008] EWHC 1235 (Ch) (06 June 2008)

The Court found no credible evidence of a partnership or binding copyright agreement between the four boys, rejected the Claimants' allegations of undue influence and misrepresentation, and upheld the validity of the settlement agreement. The Claimants' evidence was unreliable and contradicted by documents and credible testimony from Defendants and third parties.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1235 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Kiley McPhail (aka Kiley Fitzgerald); Claimant: Owen Doyle; Defendant: James Bourne; Defendant: Mathew Sargeant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division High Court / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Partnership Formation, Song Copyright Ownership, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Duty of Disclosure, Joint Authorship, Settlement Agreements
Contract Law Partnership Law Copyright Law Partnership Formation Song Copyright Ownership Undue Influence Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract +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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiley McPhail (aka Kiley Fitzgerald)

Claimant

Owen Doyle

Claimant

James Bourne

Defendant

Mathew Sargeant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division High Court / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the four boys
  2. 2 Whether a binding song copyright ownership agreement existed
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement of 22 March 2002 should be set aside for undue influence, misrepresentation, or breach of duty of disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no credible evidence of a partnership or binding copyright agreement between the four boys, rejected the Claimants' allegations of undue influence and misrepresentation, and upheld the validity of the settlement agreement. The Claimants' evidence was unreliable and contradicted by documents and credible testimony from Defendants and third parties.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' claims for rescission of the settlement agreement and account of profits are dismissed
  • Settlement agreement of 22 March 2002 remains valid