Case No. IP-2020-000140

50.If this issue becomes relevant at trial (for example in the context of a dispute about whether Domino’s actions in requiring the DSPs to cease digital delivery of the Masters were in good faith), then the varying interpretations of the parties as to the scope of the breach originally pleaded in the Particulars of Claim may require further consideration. For the purposes of this application, however, having considered the submissions of Counsel as to the initial pleading, I conclude that there is no obvious inconsistency between the original pleading of breach and that for which permission is now sought such that permission to amend should be refused on grounds of incoherence or self-contradiction.51.Specifically, I do not agree that Mr Hebden’s earlier objections to aspects of digital exploitation clearly support a reading of the original pleading as meaning that the 2001 Agreement did not authorise digital exploitation at all. Only limited evidence on this issue was available. The evidence that was available included Mr Hebden’s Witness Statement dated 22 November 2021. That witness statement set out the circumstances in which Mr Hebden had objected to the streaming of his music via Spotify. It states that, after a request from Mr Hebden, Domino removed Mr Hebden’s music from Spotify for a period of time after which Mr Hebden’s Four Tet albums (but apparently not his singles) were made available to Spotify again. The Witness Statement of Mr Bell, from Domino, also dated 22 November 2021, deals more briefly with this issue, but broadly confirms that Domino removed Mr Hebden’s music from Spotify (and apparently from other platforms) for a period at his request, but subsequently made it available again. In the absence of further evidence on the issue, this suggests that Mr Hebden did not object to digital distribution of his music as such. I conclude that the original pleading is sufficiently capable of bearing the interpretation contended for by Mr Carter to mean that there is no clear inconsistency between it and the amended pleading for which permission is now sought.