AMI’s Additional Claim against Mr Dorset
42.AMI’s case for compensation from Mr Dorset was pleaded in its additional claim as follows:(1)On a true construction of the Satellite Agreement Mr Dorset had warranted to AMI, expressly or by implication, that(i)Satellite was, at the time of entry into the Satellite Agreement, the owner of copyright in Alright; and(ii)Mr Dorset was the composer of Alright.(2)Alternatively, it was an implied term of the Satellite Assignment that Mr Dorset would indemnify AMI in respect of any losses sustained by reason of the assignment of Alright or by reason of his breach of warranty.(3)In entering into the agreement with Sony/ATV, AMI relied on Mr Dorset’s representations, in particular that Satellite owned the copyright in Alright.(4)The representations made by Mr Dorset in the Satellite Agreement were false and in addition Mr Dorset breached the warranties contained in the Satellite Agreement.(5)AMI was accordingly entitled to an indemnity in respect of the sums that AMI was obliged to pay to EMA to settle EMA’s claim against it. Further or alternatively AMI was entitled to damages.43.At the start of the trial I asked Mr Hanke to explain how Mr Dorset’s representations related to AMI’s entering into an agreement with Sony/ATV. Mr Hanke applied to amend paragraph 24 of the Fifth Defendant’s Defence and Amended Particulars of Additional Claim against the Third Defendant. This paragraph contained the allegation summarised in subparagraph (4) of the preceding paragraph. Mr Poplawski did not object to the amendment so I allowed it. Paragraph 24 of the pleading became:“24. In entering into the Agreement with [Sony/ATV] to exploit certain compositions, which included [Alright],