0370 270 6000

Bruce Springsteen v Flute International and Others, Court of Appeal

25 April 2001
The issues

Evidence – Best Evidence Rule

The facts

The Claimant, Springsteen, alleged title to music and literary copyrights in songs. The copyright of which he further alleged had been infringed by the Defendants. The Defendants put Springsteen to proof. A link in the proof was not made by the required documentary evidence but by secondary evidence the existence of documents of signing the copyright.

The Appellants on appeal challenged the admissibility of the secondary evidence.

The decision

The best evidence rule “long on its death bed had finally expired”. In every case where a party sought to adduce secondary evidence of the contents of a document it was a matter for the Court to decide in the light of all of the circumstances of the case what if any weight was to attach to that evidence.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up