Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited v Noel Redding Estate Limited & Anor

On a forum non conveniens challenge, the defendant must show that another available forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than England. The court must identify the true dispute, including the defence, rather than characterise the case solely by reference to the pleaded relief. An appellate court should not interfere with an evaluative forum decision unless there is a material error of principle or the decision is plainly wrong.

A case-management stay pending foreign proceedings is governed by the interests of justice. Such a stay requires a powerful reason and will be exceptional, particularly where the English proceedings remain useful and the foreign proceedings may resolve only part of the dispute.

The claimants sought declarations and relief concerning copyright and performers’ rights in recordings made by The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited challenged the English court’s jurisdiction under CPR Part 11, contending that New York was the more appropriate forum because releases executed in New York were central to the dispute and related proceedings were pending there.

The Deputy Master dismissed the jurisdiction challenge and refused an alternative case-management stay. The defendant appealed and renewed its application for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the Deputy Master had correctly identified the true dispute, whether New York was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum, and whether the English proceedings should be stayed pending the New York proceedings.

1. Permission and outcome. Permission to appeal was granted on Grounds One to Nine, except that Ground Five was limited to sub-grounds seven and eight. The substantive appeal was dismissed.
2. Forum. The applicable test was the two-stage Spiliada inquiry. The defendant had to establish that New York was available and clearly or distinctly more appropriate than England. The court had to consider the substance of the dispute, including the likely defence, rather than only the claims and relief pleaded.
3. The Deputy Master had not materially mischaracterised the dispute. The releases were a central New York element, but they were not the whole claim. The dispute also concerned alleged infringement of copyright and performers’ rights in England between parties connected with England. The New York proceedings sought declaratory relief on only one aspect of the dispute, and an unsuccessful outcome there would not necessarily dispose of the English claims.
4. The Deputy Master had erred in treating it as a possibility that the effect of the releases would be modified by UK or EU law on consent. The releases contained releases and covenants not to sue and were, on the materials before the court, governed by New York law. That error did not undermine the overall evaluative conclusion, which was supported by the other connecting factors and considerations.
5. Case-management stay. A stay pending foreign proceedings is governed by whether, in the particular circumstances, it is in the interests of justice. There is no separate legal test for parallel proceedings, although a powerful reason is required and such cases are exceptional. The Deputy Master had independently exercised his discretion, relying on reasons which also supported the forum decision. The English proceedings remained useful, and the New York proceedings might resolve only the releases. No sufficient reason existed to stay the claim.
6. The Deputy Master’s decisions therefore stood. The parties were to address consequential orders as necessary.

• Chancery Appeals (ChD): On 25 April 2023, the High Court granted permission to appeal in the stated limited form and dismissed the substantive appeal from the Deputy Master’s order.
• Deputy Master Rhys: On 21 June 2022, the jurisdiction challenge under CPR Part 11 and the alternative application for a stay were dismissed.