Sony Music Entertainment (Ireland) Ltd & Ors -v- UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2017] IECA 96 (24 March 2017)

Sony Music Entertainment (Ireland) Ltd & Ors -v- UPC Communications Ireland Ltd [2017] IECA 96 (24 March 2017)

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge did not err in awarding 60% of the costs to the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the main issue (injunction), while UPC succeeded on certain issues affecting the terms of the injunction. The novelty, complexity, or test case nature of the proceedings did not constitute special circumstances justifying a further departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal on costs and awarded the plaintiffs the costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.

Citation
[2017] IECA 96
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Sony Music Entertainment (Ireland) Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent: Universal Music Ireland Ltd.; Plaintiff/respondent: Warner Music Ireland Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: UPC Communications Ireland Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
24 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal on Costs Following Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Injunctions Against Intermediaries, Costs Orders, Discretionary Orders, Test Case Litigation
Intellectual Property Law Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Injunctions Against Intermediaries Costs Orders Discretionary Orders Test Case Litigation

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

Parties

Sony Music Entertainment (Ireland) Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Universal Music Ireland Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Warner Music Ireland Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

UPC Communications Ireland Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal on Costs Following Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in awarding only 60% of costs to the plaintiffs up to the date of judgment and requiring each party to bear its own costs thereafter
  2. 2 Whether the novelty and complexity of the case or its status as a test case justified a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event
  3. 3 Whether UPC's status as a non-infringing intermediary was a special circumstance affecting costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge did not err in awarding 60% of the costs to the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs succeeded on the main issue (injunction), while UPC succeeded on certain issues affecting the terms of the injunction. The novelty, complexity, or test case nature of the proceedings did not constitute special circumstances justifying a further departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. The Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal on costs and awarded the plaintiffs the costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs awarded 60% of their costs up to the date of substantive High Court judgment; each party to bear its own costs thereafter
  • Plaintiffs awarded costs of the appeal on a party and party basis; no indemnity costs