Meridian International Services Ltd v Richardson & Ors

Meridian International Services Ltd v Richardson & Ors

The Court held that MIL failed to establish that the implication of the terms regarding copyright assignment and ownership was necessary for the business efficacy of the January Agreement or so obvious as to go without saying. The evidence did not support the existence of a concluded contract with CHUK at the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Meridian International Services Ltd; Respondent: Richardson & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Copyright Ownership, Business Efficacy, Software Development Agreements
Contract Law Intellectual Property Implied Terms Copyright Ownership Business Efficacy Software Development Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meridian International Services Ltd

Appellant

Richardson & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether terms regarding copyright assignment and ownership should be implied into the January Agreement between the parties
  2. 2 Whether implication of such terms is necessary for business efficacy or so obvious as to go without saying

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that MIL failed to establish that the implication of the terms regarding copyright assignment and ownership was necessary for the business efficacy of the January Agreement or so obvious as to go without saying. The evidence did not support the existence of a concluded contract with CHUK at the relevant time, the software was bespoke and not intended for resale, and the necessity for the implied terms was not mutual among all parties. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed