Miller v Experience Hendrix Llc & 2 Ors

Summary judgment may be granted where the claimant has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The court may test witness evidence against contemporaneous documents and reject evidence shown to be manifestly false or inherently implausible. A claim seeking to reopen earlier judgments on the basis of fraud must identify a realistically arguable fraud affecting those judgments. A claim against solicitors based only on their alleged participation in a client’s wrongdoing is insufficiently particularised without allegations of knowledge. An extended civil restraint order requires persistent claims or applications that are totally without merit.

The claimant brought two claims following earlier litigation in which Experience Hendrix LLC had obtained summary judgment concerning rights in recordings of performances by Jimi Hendrix. He alleged that a later deed of assignment, relied upon in the earlier litigation, was fabricated and that the defendants had deceived the court. One claim sought to undermine the earlier judgments; the other alleged that solicitors and former solicitors had unlawfully interfered with the claimant’s business.

The defendants applied for summary judgment under Part 24 or, alternatively, strike out under CPR 3.4. They relied principally on contemporaneous documents concerning execution of the deed and argued that the second claim was dependent upon the first and was inadequately pleaded.

1. Summary judgment. The defendants bore the burden of showing that the claimant had no real prospect of success and that there was no other compelling reason for a trial. The court was not required to accept witness evidence at face value. It could test that evidence against contemporaneous documents and reject it where it was manifestly false or contradicted by compelling evidence.
2. The allegation that Mr Leighton-Davis’s signature was forged was unsupported by evidence. The contemporaneous faxes, signed documents, fee note and payment records were compelling evidence that Mr Hagood had executed the deed and considered himself empowered to do so. Whether Mr Hagood had signed it was in any event irrelevant to Mr Leighton-Davis’s ability, as English administrator, to pass the relevant title to Experience Hendrix LLC.
3. The claimant’s attempt to reopen the earlier judgments depended upon establishing fraud. Since the forgery allegations had no real prospect of success, claim 826 was bound to fail. Claim 827 depended upon the same challenge and therefore also failed. In addition, it was insufficiently particularised because it alleged no knowledge by the solicitors of wrongdoing. The judge also considered that the claims were statute-barred and that the appropriate claimant in respect of the alleged business loss would have been Purple Haze Records Limited, not the claimant personally.
4. Summary judgment was therefore entered for the defendants on both claims, which were dismissed and recorded as totally without merit. The defendants received costs on the indemnity basis and an interim payment on account of £100,000. An extended civil restraint order was refused because the necessary persistence had not been established. Permission to appeal was refused, subject to an application to the Court of Appeal.

1. High Court (Chancery Division): earlier summary judgments were given by Hart J in [2005] EWHC 249 (Ch) and Park J in [2006] EWHC 968 (Ch). An appeal from Park J’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in [2007] EWCA Civ 501.
2. High Court (Chancery Division): the present claims were summarily dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused, with liberty to apply to the Court of Appeal.