Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd

On a summary judgment application, a defendant must show an arguable defence supported by the evidence. Unsupported or ambiguous assertions concerning rival entitlement, deductions, contractual preconditions or missing invoices will not justify withholding payment.

The court may award interest from the dates when sums became due. The judgment rate is not ordinarily appropriate for a period before judgment merely because an earlier summary judgment application or account order was unsuccessful. Although Part 36 does not formally apply to summary judgment, the court may consider a Part 36 offer when exercising its general discretion over interest and may award an enhanced rate.

Mark Taylor, a record producer, sought summary judgment against Rive Droite Music Ltd for royalties, advances and production fees arising from their oral production arrangements. Earlier proceedings had determined the contractual entitlement and dismissed RDM’s counterclaims. Accounts were subsequently provided, but RDM withheld payment relying on alleged rival producer claims, deductions, missing information, unsigned agreements and absent invoices.

The applications concerned whether those matters amounted to arguable defences, the appropriate interest rates, disclosure supporting the accounts, and future compliance with the accounting obligations.

1. Royalties. RDM accepted liability for £531,630.87 inclusive of VAT. Its alleged defence to a further £9,255.02 claim, based on an ambiguous invoice and correspondence concerning Walter Turbitt, had no arguable evidential basis. Judgment was therefore entered for both sums.
2. Interest. RDM’s concern about possible claims by other producers did not justify retaining money for its own use. It could have paid the money into court by interpleader proceedings. Interest was therefore payable from the dates when the royalties fell due. The judgment rate was inappropriate before judgment because judgment had not been entered on the earlier application and RDM had then had arguable counterclaims.
3. Part 36 did not formally apply to the summary judgment application. Following Petrotrade Incorporated v Texaco Limited [2002] 1 W.L.R. 947, however, the court could take the offer into account under its general interest jurisdiction. The offer was a claimant’s offer and, under Part 36, was treated as including interest because it did not indicate otherwise. An enhanced rate of 5 per cent above base rate was appropriate after 2 March 2004, with 1 per cent above base rate before then.
4. Advances and fees. RDM had no arguable defence to the claims relating to the six projects. There was no sufficient evidence of rival producer claims, impermissible deductions, a duty on Mr Taylor to provide costs or credit information, or a contractual requirement making signed agreements, supplied production materials or prior invoices preconditions to payment. Judgment was entered for the sums claimed, with interest on the same basis.
5. RDM was ordered to disclose documents supporting the relevant accounts within 21 days and to provide supporting documents with future royalty accounts. The costs of the applications were ordered to be assessed on the indemnity basis, with an interim payment of £25,000.

The judgment records that earlier proceedings before Lewison J and the Court of Appeal had substantially determined the parties’ disputes, and that permission to appeal to the House of Lords had been refused. Those earlier decisions formed the background to the present summary judgment applications.