Declan Colgan Music Limited v UMG Recordings, Inc.

Declan Colgan Music Limited v UMG Recordings, Inc.

Permission to adduce expert evidence was refused because, on the material before the court, the proposed evidence was not shown to be admissible as expert evidence (due to lack of evidence of a reliable body of knowledge or experience), was not necessary for resolution of the issues, and the cost was disproportionate to its likely assistance. The court held that the relevant background facts could be established by lay evidence and that the proportionality of the proposed expert evidence did not justify its admission under CPR 35.

Parties
Claimant: Declan Colgan Music Limited; Defendant: UMG Recordings, Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract/commercial) / Interlocutory Application (permission to Adduce Expert Evidence at Case and Costs Management Conference)
Outcome
Application for permission to adduce expert evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Interpretation of Contracts, Royalty Accounting, Admissibility of Evidence, Case Management
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Expert Evidence Interpretation of Contracts Royalty Accounting Admissibility of Evidence Case Management

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

Parties

Declan Colgan Music Limited

Claimant

UMG Recordings, Inc.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract/commercial) / Interlocutory Application (permission to Adduce Expert Evidence at Case and Costs Management Conference)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant should have permission to adduce expert evidence concerning the market for digital music consumption in 2005 and the nature and pricing of streaming services versus CDs for the purpose of interpreting royalty provisions in a licence agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to adduce expert evidence was refused because, on the material before the court, the proposed evidence was not shown to be admissible as expert evidence (due to lack of evidence of a reliable body of knowledge or experience), was not necessary for resolution of the issues, and the cost was disproportionate to its likely assistance. The court held that the relevant background facts could be established by lay evidence and that the proportionality of the proposed expert evidence did not justify its admission under CPR 35.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to adduce expert evidence refused.

Orders

  • Permission to adduce expert evidence refused at this stage.
  • No preliminary or reviewable order for expert evidence made unless and until the likely cost is revisited and reduced.