Judgment: 2007-07-18 · Court archive

High Court orders limited discovery in ‘The Voyage’ copyright case

The court directed two defendants to provide sworn document discovery covering specified EU activity from 1999 to 2002 and payments said to have been made to the plaintiff. It excluded material concerning events in the United States and Canada.

High Court · [2007] IEHC 292

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Johnny Duhan (Plaintiff)
  • Radius Television Production Limited
  • TV Matters B.V.
What

The court directed two defendants to provide sworn document discovery covering specified EU activity from 1999 to 2002 and payments said to have been made to the plaintiff. It excluded material concerning events in the United States and Canada.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Royal Dublin Society
  • European Union
  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court narrowed the request for recording-related documents to records about the number of each type of recording of the song or an alteration, produced by or for the defendants within the EU between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2002. For related literature, packaging and lyric materials, discovery was limited to documents about the number produced within the EU between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2002. For distribution and sales, it ordered discovery of records about distribution, storage, transport, sale or other making available of the specified items within the EU between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2002. The court declined to order discovery of the geographical extent of circulation, finding that scope imprecise and burdensome.

The High Court has ordered Radius Television Production Limited and TV Matters B.V. to make limited discovery of documents in a copyright case brought by Johnny Duhan over the song “The Voyage”. The order concerns specified activity within the European Union from 1999 to 2002, along with documents about payments the defendants say may have been made to him or on his behalf. The court did not decide whether copyright was infringed or determine the parties’ dispute over jurisdiction.

The plaintiff claims authorship and copyright in the song’s music and words. He alleges that the Irish Tenors performed it, or an adaptation, without his consent at the Royal Dublin Society in or about 1999 and at venues in the United States. He further alleges that the defendants reproduced and distributed recordings and related literature. The defendants deny liability and dispute the asserted rights; they plead licensing arrangements and say certain payments should count against any sums claimed.

The application was referred to the High Court by the Master. In an interlocutory ruling on a discovery motion, Mr Justice Herbert considered the categories sought against the first and second defendants. He said the court would not investigate the existence or infringement of rights under United States or Canadian law and declined discovery touching events in those countries. The court proceeded on the jurisdictional certificates in the pleadings, without prejudice to a later decision on jurisdiction. No preliminary trial of that issue had been sought.

The court narrowed the request for recording-related documents to records about the number of each type of recording of the song or an alteration, produced by or for the defendants within the EU between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2002. For related literature, packaging and lyric materials, discovery was limited to documents about the number produced within the EU between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2002. For distribution and sales, it ordered discovery of records about distribution, storage, transport, sale or other making available of the specified items within the EU between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2002. The court declined to order discovery of the geographical extent of circulation, finding that scope imprecise and burdensome.

The defendants must also disclose documents concerning payments pleaded in their defence, including payments made to the plaintiff or on his behalf. The judgment did not set the deadline or identify who would swear each affidavit of documents; the court said it would hear submissions on those matters. It reserved the motion’s costs to the hearing of the action.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review