Case No. IP-2015-000167

, AMI relied upon Mr Dorset’s representations (set out in paragraph 2.2 above).”The representations in paragraph 2.2 were that (i) Satellite owned the copyright in Alright and (ii) Mr Dorset composed Alright. By the amendment, AMI relied on those representations leading to AMI entering into the Satellite Agreement, as well as the agreement with Sony/ATV. Mr Dorset’s pleaded Defence to the Additional Claim 44.Mr Dorset’s Amended Defence contained a further volte face: Mr Dorset accepted that in the 2014 Settlement Agreement he had acknowledged the assignment of the copyright in Alright to EMA, in the 1973 Assignment, and had also accepted the validity of that assignment. He now said that this was false: he had written Alright by himself and Satellite had Defence advanced at trial 45.At trial Mr Poplawski did not distinguish between the various ways that AMI put its case – which was a reasonable and efficient approach. He made the following assertions of fact, which he said were supported by the evidence:(1)Mr Cohen was responsible for the registration of Alright (2)Mr Cohen was responsible for putting Alright into Schedule C of the Satellite Assignment of 2008.(3)Mr Cohen was a de facto director of Satellite at the time of the Satellite Assignment.46.Mr Poplawski argued that at the date of the Satellite Assignment in 2008 Mr Cohen must have been fully aware that EMA had a claim to the copyright in Alright. The back-dated application to register the song with PRS, which he had signed, was proof that he recognised the need to overcome this claim.47.Secondly, it was Mr Cohen who had included Alright in Schedule C of the Satellite Agreement. Therefore he cannot have relied on any representation by Mr Dorset that Satellite owned the copyright. The representation regarding Satellite’s ownership of the copyright in Alright came from Mr Cohen himself as de facto director of Satellite.