Ferndale Films Ltd v Granada Television Ltd
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Carney J. |
Judgment Date | 26 February 1993 |
Neutral Citation | 1993 WJSC-HC 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 2314p/1992 |
Court | High Court |
Date | 26 February 1993 |
BETWEEN
AND
1993 WJSC-HC 1980
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
CONFLICT OF LAWS
Contract
Breach - Action - Trial - High Court - Jurisdiction - Test of obligation upon which action based - Place of performance of obligation - Obligation to pay money to Irish company - Obligation to be performed after collection by defendant of licence fees elsewhere - Obligation to be performed after assessment elsewhere of amount due - Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988, s. 3; 1st schedule, articles 2, 5 - (1992/2314 P - Carney J. - 26/2/93)
|Ferndale Films Ltd. v. Granada Television Ltd.|
HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction
Contract - Breach - Action - Defendant - Obligation - Money - Payment - Collection of licence fees from persons in foreign countries - Payment to be made in Ireland - Test of obligation upon which action based - Place of performance of obligation - (1992/2314 P - Carney J. - 26/2/93) - [1993] 3 I.R. 362
|Ferndale Films Ltd. v. Granada Television Ltd.|
Citations:
BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 5(3)
BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 5(1)
DE BLOOS V BOUYER 1976 ECR 1497
IVENEL V SCHWAB 1982 ECR 1981
SHENAVAI V KREISCHER 1987 ECR 251
UNIDARE PLC V JAMES SCOTT LTD 1991 2 IR 88
CAMPBELL INTERNATIONAL TRADING HOUSE LTD V VAN AART 1992 ILRM 27, 663
OLYMPIA PRODUCTIONS LTD V CAMERON MACKINTOSH 1992 ILRM 204
UNION TRANSPORT PLC V CONTINENTAL LINES SA 1992 1 WLR 15
UNION TRANSPORT PLC V CONTINENTAL LINES SA 1991 2 LL LR 48
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION LTD V BASSER MANUFACTURING CO 1950 1 KB 488
BIER V MIENS DE POTASSE D'ALSACE 1976 ECR 1735
BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 5
JURISDICTION OF COURTS & ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS ACT 1988
Judgment delivered the 26th day of February 1993by Carney J.
The Plaintiff is a Company incorporated and domiciled in Ireland which engages in film production. The Defendants are each Companies incorporated and domiciled in England which engage in the business of television and film production and distribution.
By agreement in writing (hereinafter called the Production Agreement) dated the 26th day of July 1988, the Plaintiff agreed to produce and manufacture for the first named Defendant the master negative of a full length feature film entitled "My Left Foot".
The Production Agreement provided formulae for the distribution of the profits of the film and receipts from itsexploitation. It is not necessary for the purpose of this Judgment that I set out the details of these arrangements.
The Plaintiffs complain that the Defendants have failed to account fully and properly to the Plaintiffs for all receipts and profits from the distribution of the film and as a result the Plaintiffs say they have been deprived of the funds properly due to be paid to them in Ireland. They say they have been paid significantly less than they would have been entitled to receive had the sums earned by distribution of the film been properly administered and calculated.
The dispute between the parties arises in particular from the decision of the Defendants to grant to the Miramax Film Corporation of the United States of America the right to distribute the film in North America initially and subsequently elsewhere.
The Plaintiffs claim that the agreement entered into with Miramax was in the first instance improvident and subseqently was not adequately policed, monitored and enforced as a result of which the Plaintiff has not had the share it ought to have had.
On this account the Plaintiff claims:-
1. Damages for breach of contract.
2. Damages for breach of fiduciary duty.
3. Damages for negligence.
4. An account of all sums due to the Plaintiff in respect of the said breach of fiduciary duty.
5. All reasonable and proper accounts and enquiries.
6. Interest pursuant to the Courts Act 1981.
7. The costs of these proceedings.
8. Further and other relief.
The Plenary Summons is indorsed:-
"This Court has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's claim under the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act 1988to hear and determine the Plaintiff's claim herein and should asssume jurisdiction to hear the claim under the provision of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of the 1968 Convention. No proceedings between the parties concerning this cause of action are pending between the parties in any other contracting state."
In the course of the argument it was in effect (perhaps tacitly rather than expressly) agreed that the Motion concerned Article 5(1) rather than 5(3) of the 1968 Convention.
The Defendants have entered an Appearance to the Plenary Summons in this action solely to contest the jurisdiction of the Court which they do by this Motion.
The Defendants submit that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Plaintiff's claim under Article 5(1) of the BrusselsConvention 1968.
The Defendants" case in this regard is based on the submission that their obligations under the Production Agreement in relation to the collection of monies cannot be performed in Ireland as the agreement related to the world excluding...
To continue reading
Request your trial