Lunak Heavy Industries (UK) Ltd & Anor v Tyburn Film Productions Limited

Summary judgment or strike out is inappropriate where a claim raises difficult or developing questions of unjust enrichment and the court cannot be certain that it is bound to fail. This is especially so in three-party or indirect-benefit cases, where the boundary between direct and indirect enrichment and any genuine exceptions remains fact-sensitive.

An appellate court should show some reluctance to interfere with case-management decisions concerning summary disposal, although the same degree of restraint does not necessarily apply to pure questions of law. A bona fide purchaser for value defence may depend on constructive as well as actual notice. The appeal was dismissed and the matter returned for directions to trial.

Tyburn Film Productions Limited claimed that the appellants had been unjustly enriched by obtaining and exploiting a licence to recreate Peter Cushing’s likeness in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. The alleged enrichment arose from agreements involving Mr Cushing, his estate and the appellants, including a 1993 collateral agreement and a 2016 agreement.

The appellants accepted enrichment for present purposes but argued that any benefit was not obtained at Tyburn’s expense. They also relied on a bona fide purchaser for value defence and sought summary judgment or strike out. Master Kaye rejected the application in [2023] EWHC 3247 (Ch). Permission to appeal was granted. The central issues were whether the unjust enrichment claim was legally arguable and whether the defence could be determined without a factual investigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claim was to return to the Master for directions to trial.
2. Under Part 24, the court had to consider whether the claim had no real prospect of success and whether there was any other compelling reason for a trial. The claim had to be realistic, more than merely arguable and not fanciful. The court could decide a short point of law summarily where it had all necessary evidence, but should hesitate where further factual investigation might affect the outcome.
3. The appeal involved points of law, but also case-management considerations. The judge therefore showed some reluctance to interfere with the Master’s decision, though less than would apply to a purely evaluative decision of the kind discussed in Lifestyle Equities.
4. The unjust enrichment issue was not certain to fail. The authorities, particularly Investment Trust Companies, recognised difficulty in cases involving indirect benefits and coordinated transactions, while leaving the boundaries and possible exceptions unsettled. The claimant could articulate an arguable case that the transactions were sufficiently coordinated. The absence of an analogous successful case did not make the claim unarguable.
5. The developing nature of the law and the fact-sensitive character of three-party unjust enrichment claims made determination on assumed facts inappropriate. Resolving the issue summarily risked conducting a mini-trial.
6. The bona fide purchaser for value defence was potentially available, but notice could be constructive as well as actual. The absence of an allegation of actual notice did not therefore determine the issue. Disclosure and evidence might reveal relevant facts concerning the parties’ relationships and knowledge.
7. The asserted absence of a need for a mini-trial was not a freestanding ground. It failed with the first two grounds. Costs and consequential matters were reserved for agreement or further submissions.

• High Court, Chancery Appeals: Appeal against the order of Master Kaye dated 8 December 2023. The appeal was dismissed and the matter returned to the Master for directions to trial.
• High Court, Business List (ChD): Master Kaye rejected the appellants’ application for summary judgment or strike out in [2023] EWHC 3247 (Ch).