High Court ruling in The 1975's favour: band members not personally liable for Good Vibes Festival controversy

Background

Future Sound Asia (“Claimant”) is the organiser of the Good Vibes Festival and contracted with The 1975 Productions LLP for the band's performance at the Malaysian event in 2023. During the performance lead singer, Matty Healy, criticised Malaysia’s anti-homosexuality laws and proceeded to kiss his male bandmate and bassist, Ross MacDonald. The remaining two days of the festival were cancelled by the Malaysian authorities, following the alleged revocation of the entertainment licence held by the Claimant.

Claim

In July 2024, the Claimant issued proceedings against The 1975 Productions LLP, as well as the individual band members. The particulars of claim alleged breach of contract, negligence, and damages amounting to £1.9 million, as well as a claim for exemplary damages.

The Claimant argued that, despite the absence of any contract between it and the band members, a duty of care arose on the basis of a special relationship and an assumption of responsibility. The Claimant therefore alleged that the individual band members owed the Claimant “a duty of care to act in a reasonable, lawful and appropriate way” during their performance and the respective band members’ breach of that duty resulted in the Claimant’s substantial financial loss.

Strike out application

In September 2024, the individual band members submitted an application to the High Court to strike out the claims made against them personally, on the basis that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing those claims and/or on the basis that the Claimant has no real prospects of succeeding on those parts of the claim.

Deputy Master Hansen has recently delivered his judgment on the strike out application.

Decision

The Court emphasised that the key consideration when assessing the strike out application is whether the Claimant has a “realistic” prospect of success, rather than a “fanciful” one.  

The judgment clarified the allocation of the claims: (i) the Claimant against the LLP for breach of contract; and (ii) the Claimant against the individual band members for negligence. Therefore, the primary issues to be considered were as follows:

• Did the individual band members owe the Claimant a duty of care?
• Could the individual band members be held personally liable for the alleged misconduct?

Following a detailed consideration of the Claimant’s arguments, it was held that the Claimant had no real prospect of establishing that the individual band members owed the Claimant a duty of care, “whether based on a special relationship and an assumption of voluntary responsibility or on the basis of the well-known three-fold test”. The judge highlighted the following points:

• There were no personal dealings between the Claimant and the individual band members, and the band members were entitled to limit their liability by incorporating their LLP to enter into contracts for their foreign performances. The judge highlighted that the LLP is a distinct and separate legal entity from the individual band members.
• The Claimant’s reliance on an alleged conversation between it and the band’s tour management “about an hour before going on stage” was “far too flimsy a basis for finding a voluntary assumption of responsibility”.  
• The overall position as between the Claimant and the individual band members is not akin or equivalent to contract, and “is a long way from even coming close”.
• It would not be fair to require the individual band members to comply with local guidelines where they are not alleged to have known of their content.

On that basis, the judge held that the Claimant’s prospects of establishing a duty of care were “fanciful” and the claims against the individual band members were dismissed. The Claimant’s case against the LLP will however continue to trial.

With regards to the claim for exemplary damages, this was also struck out. The judge confirmed that “as a matter of principle, exemplary damages are not available when the wrong complained of is merely a breach of contract”.

Comment

This case serves as a reminder of the legal distinctions between individuals and limited liability partnerships in contractual matters, highlighting the legal protections that individuals are afforded when operating under an LLP. It is also a helpful reminder to event organisers (and to any party contracting with talent through their loan-out company) of the importance of inducement letters.