Celador Productions Ltd v Melville

Summary judgment requires the applicant to show that the opposing party has no real prospect of success and that no other compelling reason requires a trial. A real prospect is more than fanciful or merely arguable. The court must not conduct a document-only mini-trial without disclosure or cross-examination.

Abuse of process under the rule in Henderson v Henderson requires a broad, merits-based assessment of all the circumstances. Copyright infringement cannot be established merely by similarities consisting of ideas, style or presentational techniques divorced from their context, or by copying insubstantial elements.

Celador sought summary judgment in three related but factually distinct claims concerning alleged copyright infringement and misuse of confidential information in the television programme Who Wants to be a Millionaire?

• Mr Melville claimed that the programme copied his game format.
• Mr Boone claimed that it copied his HELP! format. Celador and ITV argued that his claim was also an abuse of process because related proceedings had previously been brought by Watch TV.
• Mr Baccini claimed infringement arising from his Millionaire and BT Lottery concepts.

The common issues were the test under CPR rule 24.2 and whether the evidence justified summary disposal rather than trial.

1. Summary judgment test. Under CPR rule 24.2, the applicant had to show that the respondent had no real prospect of success and that there was no other compelling reason for a trial. A real prospect was more than fanciful or merely arguable. The court could not conduct a document-only trial without disclosure or cross-examination.
2. Mr Melville. The existence, circulation and possible receipt of the revised proposal involved conflicts of evidence, credibility and linked factual issues. Those issues required disclosure, cross-examination and trial. Celador’s application for summary judgment was dismissed.
3. Mr Boone. Applying the merits-based approach in Johnson v Gore-Wood & Co, the claim should have been pursued in the earlier Watch TV proceedings. Its later institution was an abuse of process. That conclusion was sufficient to dispose of the application. Alternatively, the chronology showed that the relevant development of Cash Mountain pre-dated communication of HELP!, and the alleged similarities were no more than elements of style or technique. They could not constitute a substantial part of the copyright work or confidential information when divorced from context. The claim was summarily dismissed.
4. Mr Baccini. The alleged similarities in the television format, including the £1 million prize, ten contestants selected through a premium telephone line, the fastest contestant concept, multiple-choice questions, doubling prizes and safe havens, were capable of supporting an inference of copying a substantial part. The evidential conflicts required trial. The application was dismissed.

The court reserved further argument on the form of the orders, costs and consequential matters.