the CMC
”) and are found in a Schedule to the CMC order. 10.The CMC order also contains a recital noting that the Defendant accepts that the documents set out in Part A of Appendix 1 to the Amended Particulars of Claim fall within the ambit of clause 5 of the RDA. However, there remains a dispute about whether the ‘Requested Documents’ set out in Part B of Appendix 1 to the Amended Particulars of Claim (as that Part B was amended by the Claimant after a hearing before HHJ Hacon on 28 January 2022) (“
- Paddington
- Pixdene
- Copyrights
- Agent
- During the term of this Agreement a third party auditor may, upon prior written notice to Paddington and not more than once per every two year period, inspect the agreements and any other business records of Paddington with respect to the relevant records or associated matters during normal working hours to verify Paddington’s compliance with this Agreement.”
- Third Audit
- THE ISSUES
- the CMC
- Part B Requested Documents
- Contractual construction
- The implication of terms
- D. THE RDA
- E. DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
- Who can inspect?
- Issue 2(a) – Does clause 5 require Paddington to provide Pixdene with copies of inspected documents?
- Issue 4 – Is an audit inspection under clause 5 limited to a physical on-site inspection of documents in Paddington’s offices, during normal working hours?
- in order to
- to report
- limited disclosure right
- Issue 2(b) – Does clause 5 require Paddington to provide the third party auditor with copies of inspected documents?
- Copyrights Agreement
- and not more than once per every two year period
- Issue 7 – To what extent is Paddington entitled to redact documents seen by (a) the third party auditor; (b) Suttons Solicitors [who act for Pixdene] and any other professional advisors of Pixdene and (c) Pixdene?
- F. SUMMARY AND FORM OF ORDER