Fiduciary claim
Fiduciary claim
In light of my conclusion on the claim in restitution I do not need to deal with the claim based on an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by Ticketline into accounting to Tokyo, in its capacity, as permitted by SSD and indeed Ticketline. as organiser of the festival, for the proceeds of ticket sales. It is said that once Tokyo took over management and organisation of the 2022 Festival, Ticketline was its agent, owing it fiduciary duties and that it failed to account to Tokyo for the ticket proceeds (and the rebate). The difficulty with this is that whatever the position might have been had the deal been concluded by way of binding legal documentation, embodying Option 1, Ticketline owed contractual duties (and possibly, although this is contested, fiduciary duties) to SSD. It is difficult to see how these were replaced by fiduciary duties to account to Tokyo, when SSD Music remained the relevant promotor and Tokyo was, in effect, assisting SSD Music in carrying out the day-to-day organisation and paying the bills.
- Heading
- HH Judge Davis-White KC
- The SSD companies
- The Defendant, Ticketline
- Mr Mellor and Tokyo
- The Parties and representation
- THE WITNESSES
- THE FACTUAL HISTORY
- 2017-18
- Section 9
- Section 10
- Section 11
- Section 12
- ` Or words to that effect
- Section 14
- Section 15
- The Three Options: July 2022
- Heads of Terms: 28 July 2022
- 29 July to 8 August 2022
- Draft Settlement Agreement 9 August 2022
- The nature of the loans made by Ticketline and the question of ticket refunds
- Unjust enrichment
- Has the Defendant benefitted in the sense of being enriched?
- Was the enrichment at the Claimant’s expense?
- Was the enrichment unjust?
- Fiduciary claim
- Conclusions
![BL-2023-NCL-000014 - [2025] EWHC 2074 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)