Section 15
…
Tokyo provide cashflow to Bingley Festival to enable the festival to proceed and fully open to prevent refunding of tickets…”.
In my judgment this email confirms once again that at this time (a) the only relevant contractual arrangement was that the element of ticket sales to which SSD was entitled by way of rebate was to be used to reduce advances by Ticketline; and (b) SSD Music was entitled to the vast majority of the proceeds of ticket sales and at this point there had been no set off nor agreement to set off the same against advances made by Ticketline.
I should also add that the negotiations between Mr Mellor and Mr Betesh were characterised in the Defence as being focused upon Mr Mellor becoming an investor into SSD by way of a transfer or purchase of a shareholding from the parent company, IG Industries. It is said that:
“ The further discussions did not involve any indication that Mr Mellor intended to take over the operation of SSD or assume any responsibility for organising, promoting or managing the Festival”.
In fact, the contemporaneous emails show the quoted passage to be simply untrue.
- 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)