Moviebox Megastores International Limited & Ors. v Mohammad Akram Rahi & Ors.

Knowingly false copyright complaints made to an online platform may constitute malicious falsehood and fraudulent unlawful means where they are intrinsically injurious and intended to cause economic loss. A claimant must prove that the defendant’s representations were false, that the defendant knew they were false, and that the representations caused or were likely to cause interference with the claimant’s contractual relationship with the platform and consequent loss.

For an unlawful means conspiracy or common design, the claimant must prove participation in the common design and knowledge that the means used were unlawful. Participation may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including coordinated conduct, relationships between participants, timing, and the use of common legal or procedural mechanisms.

Three consolidated claims concerned complaints made to YouTube alleging that the First and Second Claimants’ videos infringed copyright in songs. The complaints led to removal of videos, restrictions on uploading content and deactivation or threatened deactivation of YouTube channels.

The First and Second Claimants alleged malicious falsehood, fraud, causing loss by unlawful means and interference with their relationships with YouTube. The First and Third Claimants also alleged that Mr Rahi acted in an unlawful means conspiracy or common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi. Default judgments had already been entered against the latter two defendants in relation to Claim 115. The issues were whether Mr Rahi owned or had written the songs, whether his complaints were malicious and fraudulent, whether they caused loss, and whether he participated in the alleged conspiracy.

1. Authorship. Mr Rahi did not write the songs in issue. The court rejected his evidence and found that several songs were written by other identified authors, that others were traditional or adapted works, and that one song had been substantially plagiarised. The Pakistani registration certificate was given no weight because it rested on Mr Rahi’s bare assertion.
2. Malicious falsehood and fraud. Mr Rahi knowingly represented to YouTube that he owned copyright in songs which he had not written. The representations were intrinsically injurious because YouTube’s three-strikes policy could result in removal of content, restrictions on uploading and channel deactivation. His complaints were therefore malicious, irrespective of whether his immediate motive was personal advantage or injury to the claimants. They were also fraudulent.
3. Interference and loss. YouTube’s copyright-complaint procedure formed part of the contractual relationship between the claimants and YouTube. The false complaints caused YouTube to remove videos, prevent uploads and deactivate or threaten to deactivate channels. Those consequences established interference and loss.
4. Unlawful means conspiracy or common design. The claimants had to prove that Mr Rahi participated in the common design and knew that the means used by Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi were unlawful. The court inferred both elements from the timing and similarity of the campaigns, Mr Rahi’s threats and conduct, his close relationships with witnesses to the assignment, the use of the same lawyer, and his motive to continue the campaign after his own proceedings had been restrained.
5. Relief. The claims against Mr Rahi succeeded on liability. Permanent injunctions were granted in the terms sought in Claims 72, 92 and 115. The quantification of damages was left for a subsequent hearing.