The High Court ruled that the full admission price, rather than an average that accounts for concessions and complimentary entries, should be used to apply an admission-price adjustment in a tariff for playing Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited’s repertoire in nightclubs.
Miss Justice Laffoy delivered the judgment on 23 February 2007 after a motion asking the court to clarify the meaning of its 2004 judgment and order. The dispute concerned how the order’s admission-price adjustment factor should be applied. The court said the point had not been addressed during the earlier appeal.
The 2004 order varied an arbitrator’s award and set out, in a schedule, the elements used to calculate equitable remuneration payable by nightclub owners. The fee-per-event rates were tied to attendance bands, with a separate adjustment for admission prices. The schedule applied standard rates where the gross admission charge was between IR£5 and IR£6.30, with adjustments for prices outside that range.
PPI contended that the relevant figure was the full admission price. The nightclub owner on whose behalf the issue was raised contended that an average should be used to account for concessions and discounts. The judgment records that PPI had previously used average admission charges in practice, but later used the full charge after changing its tariff information requirements.
Justice Laffoy said averaging had made sense when tariff rates were linked to notional venue revenue, because it reflected actual admission income. The rates in the court’s schedule were not revenue-based, so that reason for averaging no longer applied. She also said discounted admissions on quieter nights did not justify reducing the rate for use of PPI’s repertoire on those nights when the venue received no corresponding reduction in the price paid for use on busier nights.
The court concluded that the schedule’s references to “gross admission charge” and “gross admission price” meant the full price. It said “gross” meant before value-added tax and other taxes. The judgment clarified the interpretation of the existing schedule; it did not set out a new tariff or identify a specific venue’s payment.