Summary

On an application by the claimant for summary judgment, where the defendant had admitted that it had no defence to the claim of copyright infringement, judgment had to be entered, even though the defendant had sought an adjournment.

Facts

The claimant (P) applied for summary judgment of its claim against the defendant (D) alleging that D had infringed its copyright in certain sound recordings. P was the owner of the copyright in a large number of sound recordings and had the exclusive right to play those recordings in public and authorise others to do so. D allegedly played certain of those recordings in public without licence to do so. P contended that D had infringed its copyright and sought an injunction restraining D from continuing to do so. D had communicated with P admitting that it had no defence to the claim and, wishing to avoid judgment being entered, requested an adjournment during which the parties could attempt to regularise the licensing position.

Held

On the face of the court documents and the evidence, D had no defence to the claim and therefore judgment had to be entered. Although D had applied for an adjournment, the case had been ongoing since 2002 and the court had to have regard to the waste of court resources if D was unable to pay the sum sought by P during the adjournment period resulting in the matter having to go before a further judge. It was appropriate in all the circumstances to make an order in the terms of the draft order and direct that the order was not to be sealed for the next four weeks to enable the parties to regularise the licensing position, failing which the order would be sealed, entered and fully enforceable without the need to resort to the court.

Judgment accordingly.