Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd. v. Cody [1998] IESC 64; [1994] 2 ILRM 241 (16th February, 1998)

Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Ltd. v. Cody [1998] IESC 64; [1994] 2 ILRM 241 (16th February, 1998)

Ownership of copyright or exclusive licence is a primary issue in the proceedings and cannot be proved by affidavit; oral evidence is required for matters going to the gist of the action. The trial judge misapplied the principles established in Cronin v Paul and erred in exercising discretion to allow affidavit evidence.

Citation
[1994] 2 ILRM 241
Parties
Plaintiff: Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited; Defendant: William Austin Cody; Defendant: Princess Investments Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Copyright, Evidence, Case Management, Discovery
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Evidence Case Management Discovery

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited

Plaintiff

William Austin Cody

Defendant

Princess Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can prove ownership or exclusive licence of copyright in sound recordings by affidavit rather than oral evidence
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to put the plaintiff on proof of copyright ownership
  3. 3 Interpretation of rules regarding evidence by affidavit versus oral testimony

Ratio Decidendi

Ownership of copyright or exclusive licence is a primary issue in the proceedings and cannot be proved by affidavit; oral evidence is required for matters going to the gist of the action. The trial judge misapplied the principles established in Cronin v Paul and erred in exercising discretion to allow affidavit evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's application to prove copyright ownership by affidavit is rejected; oral evidence required.
  • Recommendation to assign all related actions to one judge for effective case management.