Rights owner, Hipgnosis SFH 1 Ltd, represented by Edmund Cullen KC, has successfully appealed against the grant of a stay of its claim against Barry Manilow. Edmund was instructed by Andrew Sharland of Clintons.

The case arises out of Mr Manilow’s claim that he is owed an additional purchase price under a Music Catalogue Agreement by which Hipgnosis acquired the rights to Mr Manilow’s recordings. Hipgnosis began proceedings in London for a declaration that no such liability existed. Mr Manilow applied for a stay of the claim on the basis that, as the Agreement permitted him to do, he had commenced proceedings for payment of the additional purchase price in Los Angeles. The High Court granted a stay. On an expedited appeal, the Court of Appeal lifted the stay and allowed the English proceedings to continue. It held that (i) the asymmetric jurisdiction clause in the Music Catalogue Agreement gave jurisdiction to the English Court, notwithstanding Mr Manilow’s right to commence parallel proceedings in Los Angeles, and (ii), as a matter of discretion, there was no reason to stay the English proceedings. 

The Court of Appeal judgment provides a useful illustration of the operation of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses.

The full judgment can be found here: Hipgnosis SFH 1 Ltd v Barry Manilow & Anr [2025]