[ad_1]
United States:
The Sex Pistols And The Doctrine Of Estoppel
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
On 23 August 2021, Sir Anthony Mann delivered his judgment in
the widely reported case involving former members of the punk band
The Sex Pistols.
Sir Anthony Mann’s decision prevents the former
band’s frontman, Mr. John Lydon (also known as Johnny Rotten)
from stopping the band’s songs being used in a forthcoming
television series based on the memoir of one of the band’s
former members, Mr. Steve Jones, entitled “Lonely Boy: Tales
from a Sex Pistol.”
While media interest in the case concerned Mr. Lydon and his
relationship with his former band members, given their impact on
pop music and pop culture in the late 1970s and their acquired
fame, Sir Anthony Mann’s decision provides succinct guidance
on the doctrine of estoppel in England and Wales.
The Claim
The action was brought by Mr. Jones and his fellow former band
member, Mr. Paul Cook, on 22 March 2021. Mr. Jones and Mr. Cook
sought orders from the Court to establish and enforce what they
said were Mr. Lydon’s obligations pursuant to a Band Members
Agreement (BMA).
The BMA was entered into in February 1998 by Mr. Lydon, Mr.
Jones, Mr. Cook, Mr. Glen Matlock (formerly of the band) and Mr.
Simon Beverley (also a former member of the band and otherwise
known as ‘Sid Vicious,’ who died in 1979). The
agreement provided a mechanism to enable the band members to agree
by way of majority decision how the Sex Pistols’ intellectual
property (IP) rights (including publishing and proprietary rights)
should be exploited.
The producers of the television series wished to use the Sex
Pistols musical material in the series.
Mr. Jones and Mr. Cook were in favour of the proposed television
series and proposed exploitation of the Sex Pistols’ IP. Mr.
Matlock and Mr. Beverley (through a trustee acting for his artistic
estate) supported the claim.
Mr. Lydon resisted the claim. He argued that his former band
members were estopped from asserting their claims on the basis that
the BMA had never been relied upon in the past and that various
band members had always been entitled to veto any particular act of
exploitation. Mr. Lydon pointed to over 20 examples of instances
which he said supported his case.
The hearing took place in the High Court in London over a period
of seven days in July 2021.
The Decision
In his judgment, Sir Anthony Mann determined that the Claimants
were not estopped from enforcing Mr. Lydon’s obligations
under the BMA. He concluded that each of the 20 or so examples
relied upon by Mr. Lydon did not support any of the assumptions,
representations or acquiescence “to get an estoppel case
off the ground.”
In arriving at his decision, the judge helpfully set out each of
the requirements Mr. Lydon had to establish to succeed in his
estoppel position including the elements of:
- estoppel by convention which, in brief, occurs where parties
share a common understanding or assumption of a state of affairs
which is not necessarily accurate, or where one party acquiesces in
the erroneous misunderstanding of the other and it is unjust to go
back on the assumption; - estoppel by representation which happens where one person
makes, by words or conduct, a representation of fact to another
with the intention of inducing that person to rely upon it and that
person does in fact rely on it to his or her detriment; and - promissory estoppel, which occurs where a person has by words
or conduct made a clear and unequivocal promise or assurance to
another in connection with their legal relations that is intended
to be acted on. That person takes the person at their word and then
acts on the promise or assurance. The person giving the promise or
assurance cannot then be entitled to revert to their previous legal
relations as if no promise or assurance had been made by them.
The judge concluded that in the case of estoppel by convention
Mr. Lydon had to demonstrate that he believed that the BMA had no
effect and/or that unanimity was required in decisions concerning
the Sex Pistols’ IP rights. Furthermore, Mr. Lydon had to
demonstrate acquiescence by the other band members of those beliefs
– i.e. that the other band members knew that Mr. Lydon
thought that the BMA was of no effect or that any member of the
band had a right to veto any exploitation of the IP rights.
Mr. Lydon failed to persuade the Court that his former band
members were estopped from relying on and giving effect to the
majority decision arrived at between them under the BMA concerning
the exploitation of the Sex Pistols’ IP rights. Mr. Cook and
Mr. Jones were therefore permitted to give such consents as
necessary and execute all such licences to give effect to the
decisions of the relevant majority.
Sir Anthony Mann’s decision sets out not just an
interesting depiction of the relationships between former band
members of the Sex Pistols but reemphasizes the difficulties
someone wishing to rely on a form of estoppel may have in England
and Wales. Mr. Lydon pointed to over 20 examples during the period
2005 to 2018 of instances where decisions were or were not made
that he thought supported his case but ultimately the judge
disagreed and concluded that Mr. Lydon had offered no evidence at
all that persuaded him not to allow the Claimant’s case to
succeed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment from United States
[ad_2]
Source link
