Moviebox Megastores International Limited & Ors. v Mohammad Akram Rahi & Ors.

Moviebox Megastores (International) Limited is the only claimant in action number BL – 2020 – BHM – 000072 (“Claim 72”) and the second claimant in action number BL – 2020 – BHM – 000115 (“Claim 115”). It carries on business as a publisher of Indian and Pakistani sound recordings, videos and films. I will refer to it as the First Claimant as the parties did at trial;

Oriental Star Agencies Limited is the only claimant in action number BL – 2020 – BHM – 000092 (“Claim 92”). It also carries on business as a publisher of Indian and Pakistani sound recordings, videos and films. I will refer to it as the Second Claimant, as the parties did at trial;

Moviebox (Birmingham) Limited is the first claimant in claim 115. It previously carried on business as a publisher of Indian and Pakistani sound recordings, videos and films, but it assigned all its rights in that business to the First Claimant in return for the payment to it of royalties by the First Claimant, subject to that, it has ceased to trade directly as a publisher. I will refer to it as the Third Claimant as the parties did at trial;

Mohammad Akram Rahi (“Mr Rahi”) is the only defendant to Claim 72 and Claim 92 and he is the third defendant to Claim 115. He is a Pakistani national and a singer and performer of Pakistani Punjabi and Urdu music. Mr Rahi says that he is the writer of the lyrics of and music to a large number of songs, including the songs that are in issue in the consolidated claims;

Shazia Manzoor (“Ms Manzoor”) is the first defendant in Claim 115. She is a performer of Pakistani Punjabi and Urdu music. The trial did not concern Claim 115 against Ms Manzoor, because judgement in default was entered against her on 14 April 2021 (although she has applied to set aside the judgement entered against her); and

Azeem Ud Din Qureshi (“Mr Qureshi”) is the second defendant to Claim 115. The trial did not concern Mr Qureshi because judgement in default was entered against him on 14 April 2021.

Claim 72

Mr Rahi published videos on his own YouTube channel which infringed the First Claimant’s copyright and the First Claimant complained to YouTube about that infringement;

in June and July 2020, Mr Rahi issued a complaint to YouTube that the First Claimant had infringed his copyright as the author of 11 songs (“the 11 Songs”) in 26 videos on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel. Mr Rahi made his complaints about the 26 videos in three tranches in June and July 2020 (such complaints being referred to in YouTube’s policy documents as “Strikes”);

YouTube’s published policy states that if it receives three Strikes within 90 days against a YouTube Channel holder, it may terminate the YouTube channel. The First Claimant says that Mr Rahi made his complaints to YouTube in three strikes, instead of in one strike, in a deliberate attempt to cause YouTube to terminate the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, in accordance with its policy;

on 9 September 2020 YouTube deactivated the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel, the disputed videos were deleted and YouTube refused to allow the First Claimant to upload new content to its YouTube channels;

Mr Rahi’s allegations, that he owns the copyright in the 11 songs amounted to the tort of malicious falsehood and the allegations were fraudulent because:

Mr Rahi has committed the tort of causing loss to the First Claimant by unlawful means because:

he wrote the 11 Songs and the First Claimant has no copyright in them;

the 11 Songs are amongst the songs in his book “Ik Akram Rahi” registered with the Pakistani Intellectual Property Office on 19 February 2020 (“the IPO” and “the Book”) and the certificate issued by the IPO (“the Certificate”) is prima facie evidence of Mr Rahi’s ownership of the copyright in the 11 Songs which are all included in the Book;

he issued his own proceedings before the Intellectual Property Tribunal in Pakistan (“IPT”), to establish his copyright to the songs in the Book, as against the First Claimant and was successful;

he knew of the YouTube three strikes policy, but YouTube would only allow 10 links to be referred to in any one complaint and so he needed to make three complaints to cover the 26 videos of the First Claimant that he was complaining about. He did not believe that YouTube would actually close down the First Claimant’s YouTube account, as a result of receiving three strikes from a single source; and

he sets out at Schedule 1 to his defence the evidence he relies upon for his assertion that he wrote each of the 11 Songs.

In its Reply the First Claimant says:

a number of videos on Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel infringe the Second Claimant’s copyright and there has been a dispute between the Second Claimant and Mr Rahi about them since 2017;

in July 2020, Mr Rahi made groundless complaints to YouTube that 12 of the videos appearing on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel featuring Song 12 infringed his copyright as the author of the lyrics to Song 12;

Mr Rahi relies on the Book which he claims to have written in 1989 and which contains Song 12, in asserting that he wrote Song 12 ;

Song 12 was performed in 1985 by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (“Nusrat”). The Second Claimant sponsored Nusrat to come, from Pakistan, to the World of Music and Drama festival in 1985 (“WOMAD) at which Nusrat sang Song 12 and in August 1985 Nusrat recorded Song 12 for the Second Claimant;

Annex 3 to the Particulars of Claim are a cassette sleeve and a CD sleeve for Nusrat’s solo Albums 1 and 45, both released in 1988 by the Second Claimant, attributing authorship of Song 12 to Rafiq Pasha (“Mr Pasha”) and Iqbal Qasoori;

Nusrat can be heard, at the end of Song 12 singing Mr Pasha’s name, crediting him as the author of Song 12;

Mr Rahi has recorded two albums with Song 12 on them. The album sleeves of both credit Mr Pasha as the author of Song 12;

in the recordings of Song 12 made by Mr Rahi, he can be heard crediting Mr Pasha as the author;

Annex 5 to the Particulars of Claim is a copy of an assignment dated 17 July 1990 from Mr Pasha to the Second Claimant of the copyright in the lyrics to Song 12;

Mr Rahi made complaints to YouTube in three tranches in July 2020 to try to trigger YouTube’s “three strikes policy” and have the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel shut down;

YouTube gave notice threatening to terminate the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel;

Mr Rahi’s allegations amount to malicious falsehood;

Mr Rahi’s allegations are malicious because:

Mr Rahi’s allegations are fraudulent because:

Mr Rahi has committed the tort of causing loss to the Second Claimant by unlawful means because:

in 1981, while still at school, he created a poem and performed it in his village and at school, the poem became the lyrics to Song 12;

in 1983 he recited the poem in front of Nusrat who asked Mr Rahi if he would allow him to use it. Mr Rahi agreed to give Nusrat a personal licence to use the poem;

Nusrat performed Song 12, when Nasrat died in 1997 the licence terminated;

he accepts that Nusrat performed Song 12 in the UK in 1985 at WOMAD;

Nusrat does not sing “Pasha” at the end of Song 12, he sings “Pashay” meaning a high-level officer (in Persian);

he produces a cassette sleeve for his Volume 105 released in 2002 by Super Music, which credits the writing of Song 12 to Mr Rahi and the music to Sohail Abbas;

the cassette sleeve produced by the Second Claimant, of an album by Mr Rahi, crediting Rafiq Pasha as the author of Song 12 was not authorised by him, it is a pirate version of his genuine 2002 album released by Super Music;

he made three separate complaints to YouTube, because he found the 12 videos on the Second Claimant’s YouTube site on three separate occasions; and

Song 12 is included in the Book registered with the IPO which is prima facie evidence of his ownership of the copyright to Song 12.

in the Book, Mr Rahi has altered the last line of Song 12 from “Pasha” to “Rahi”;

Mr Rahi sang a version of Song 12 in 2002 and 2003 it was published by Heera Enterprises in Pakistan and by Hi -Tech Music UK Limited (“Hi - Tech”) in the UK. The Second Claimant has the cassette sleeves from those albums showing Rafiq Pasha as the author of the lyrics to song 12; and

Song 12 was sung by Nusrat at the WOMAD festival in 1985 and in 1988 WOMAD released an album including Song 12, a copy of which is annexed to the Reply, which credits Rafiq Pasha as the author of Song 12.

between 1997 and 2001, Ms Manzoor made recordings and videos and signed letters assigning to the Third Claimant the rights in those recordings and by agreement dated 20 March 2002, Ms Manzoor agreed that her rights, as singer, in recordings and videos made during the term of that agreement would vest in the Third Claimant. As a consequence the Third Claimant owned the copyright in the works listed in Annex A to the Particulars of Claim (“the Works”);

on 1 October 2015 the Third Claimant assigned to the First Claimant, its copyrights in the Works;

in February 2020, Mr Rahi obtained a certificate from the IPO purporting to certify his ownership of all the songs in the Book. Relying on that certificate, Mr Rahi issued proceedings in the IPT in Pakistan to confirm his ownership in the songs in the Book and made fraudulent and malicious claims to YouTube;

on 9 September 2020 YouTube disabled the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and Mr Rahi published, on social media a video in which he and his lawyer in Pakistan (Mr Zahoor) boasted about damaging the First Claimant’s business and threatened to continue to inflict damage on the First Claimant and that the Second Claimant’s YouTube Channel would be next;

in Claim 72 Mr Rahi undertook, after an injunction had been granted to the First Claimant, to retract the complaints he made to YouTube;

Mr Rahi issued complaints to YouTube about Song 12 appearing on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, in reliance upon the Certificate issued by the IPO in respect of the Book. YouTube issued notice that the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel would be disabled;

the Second Claimant issued Claim 92 and on 19 November 2020, obtained an injunction requiring Mr Rahi to retract the complaints he made to YouTube about the Second Claimant infringing his copyright in relation to Song 12;

Mr Rahi knows Ms Manzoor and Ms Manzoor provided a witness statement in Claim 72 in support of Mr Rahi outlining her grievance against the Second Claimant and Ms Manzoor and Mr Rahi have been photographed together;

Ms Manzoor purported to assign to Mr Qureshi, her manager, the digital publishing rights in the Works on 5 May 2020 (“the Assignment”). The witnesses to the signatures of Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi were, Mr Rana Asgar Ali (Rana”) believed to be Mr Rahi’s booking agent and Asgar Ali Jutt (“Mr Jutt”) believed to write songs for Mr Rahi;

between 21 October 2020 and 23 October 2020, Mr Qureshi complained to YouTube that the Works published on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel infringed the copyrights he had obtained by the Assignment;

YouTube removed the Works from the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and gave notice to the First Claimant that its YouTube channel would be terminated pending a review of the counter notice submitted by the First Claimant;

the same lawyer (Mr Zahoor) acted for Mr Qureshi, in submitting Mr Qureshi’s claim to the IPT in Pakistan, as acted for Mr Rahi in submitting his previous claim to the IPT;

Ms Manzoor acted maliciously and fraudulently in purporting to assign rights in the Works which she did not own, to Mr Qureshi, by the Assignment;

Mr Qureshi acted maliciously and fraudulently in issuing groundless claims to the IPT and YouTube (in the former case using the same lawyer as Mr Rahi used) and deliberately sent several complaints to YouTube to provoke it to disable the First Claimant’s YouTube channel in accordance with YouTube’s three strikes policy;

Mr Qureshi committed the tort of causing loss by unlawful means by perpetrating a deceit on YouTube by knowingly making groundless complaints to YouTube, in order to induce YouTube to remove material from the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and terminate its YouTube channel;

Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi acted in a common design to interfere wrongly in the economic interests of the First Claimant and make malicious and false claims; and

in light of: (i) the connection between Ms Manzoor and Mr Rahi and Ms Manzoor providing a witness statement for Mr Rahi in Claim 72; (ii) the witnessing of the Assignment by associates of Mr Rahi; (iii) Mr Rahi’s video in which he threatened the First Claimant; and (iv) the similarities between the proceedings issued by Mr Qureshi and Mr Rahi and the employment of the same lawyer to take proceedings for Mr Rahi and Mr Qureshi before the IPT, in Pakistan, the First and Third Claimants say that all three defendants were involved in a common design and conspiracy to injure the economic interests of the First Claimant and the Third Claimant, in that they combined to take unlawful action in order to cause damage to the First Claimant and Third Claimant.

his lawyer, Mr Zahoor was reporting on social media on 19 September 2020, on the outcome of the hearing of an appeal by the First Claimant to the High Court in Pakistan

in referring to the First Claimant and others as a “Mafia”, on 19 September 2020, he meant a group attacking a single person (i.e. Mr Rahi);

both Mr Rahi and Ms Manzoor are renowned singers in Pakistan, it would be surprising if they did not know each other;

he accepts that in the video of 19 September 2020, Mr Rahi mentioned Ms Manzoor and others complaining about fake documents;

Mr Jutt runs a music recording studio in Lahore, Rana did run a music recording studio in Lahore but is now a freelance recordist. Mr Jutt is not a writer for Mr Rahi and Rana is not Mr Rahi’s booking agent. He has hired both of their studios in the past on occasions and as a result of doing so, Mr Rahi has a passing acquaintance with both of them;

Mr Zahoor specialises in IP law and many in the music industry in Pakistan hire him; and

Mr Rahi did not cause anyone to file claims or complaints, he has no knowledge of any assignment of copyright from Ms Manzoor to Mr Qureshi or any complaint by Mr Qureshi to YouTube.

an image crediting Mr Sadiq as the author of works sung by Mr Rahi, contrary to Mr Rahi’s case that Mr Sadiq never authored any of the songs he sang;

images of songwriter’s names for songs which have now been obscured;

images showing Bhatti Studio as a recording studio used by Mr Rahi, notwithstanding that Mr Rahi says that he has never used that recording studio; and

images of a vast number of Mr Rahi’s cassettes displayed by Mr Rahi’s manager which do not match the artwork which Mr Rahi has produced in relation to those albums.

Mr Rahi providing information in relation to his solo albums being released which conflicts with his case, as to which authors, producers and studios recorded and released those albums; and

Mr Sadiq introducing an album and saying that Mr Rahi has sung songs written by him.

after Mr Rahi targeted the First Claimant’s YouTube channels, he developed a relationship with Ms Manzoor. Mr Rahi convinced Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi and worked in common design with them to target the First Claimant’s YouTube channels. Mr Rahi persuaded Ms Manzoor’s manager, Mr Qureshi, to “front the attack” on the First Claimant, so that neither Mr Rahi, nor Ms Manzoor would suffer a legal backlash;

he received calls from Pakistan telling him that Mr Rahi had openly said that he would take revenge on the First Claimant for taking out an injunction (in Claim 72) which he took to be a warning that if the First Claimant did not stop the injunction application, Mr Rahi would make the First Claimant suffer by “placing the gun” in someone else’s hands;

the First Claimant then started receiving strikes in the same pattern and supported by the same proceedings (before the IPT, in Pakistan) by the same lawyer who acted for Mr Rahi, fronted by Mr Qureshi;

the witnesses to the Assignment are the same people who were in Mr Rahi’s “about” section on his YouTube channels and Facebook pages, which detail was then removed after the First Claimant’s solicitor disclosed those pages to Mr Rahi’s solicitor;

for the following reasons he believes that the witnesses to the Assignment are well known to Mr Rahi:

he asked Mr Mirza Mc who knew both him and Mr Rahi, to ask Mr Rahi to withdraw the YouTube strikes. Mr Mirza Mc reverted and said that Mr Rahi would only retract the YouTube strikes if all solo albums sung by Mr Rahi, released by the Second Claimant and the Hi-Tech Music Ltd (a company controlled by Mr Twaseen’s brother) were removed from their YouTube and other digital platforms, so that Mr Rahi could exploit them on his own YouTube and digital platforms; and

Mr Rahi, in social media posts spoke vindictively about the Second Claimant and its former director and boasted about closing the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and warned the Second Claimant and Hi-Tech that they would be next.

audio files 1 and 27 – 29 of Mr Rahi singing “Pashay” at the end of Song 12 (crediting Mr Pasha as the author of Song 12);

audio file 15 in which Mr Rahi credits his success to the company Rehmat Gramophone House (“RGH”) which contradicts the statement of Mr Rahi in paragraph 8 of his defence that RGH;

audio files 22, 24 and 25 in which Mr Rahi confirms that Bhatti Studios was a recording studio used for some of his albums which contradicts his case that Bhatti studios did not record any of his work and the Studio Letters produced by Mr Rahi which he claims confirms that his albums were recorded at other studios; and

audio files 30 – 35 in which Mr Rahi sings the pen names “Pasha”, “Rahi”, “Sagar”, “Heera” and “Manzoor” as authorship credits on Vol 53 released by Heera which match the authorship credits in the artwork for Vol 53 released by Heera.

a copyright agreement between Heera Cassettes and Mr Rahi, regarding an album on which Mr Rahi was the singer called Volume 28, witnessed by Mr Sadiq who made the recording and authored some of the works on Volume 28. Mr Twaseen says that Volume 28 was released in 1995;

a fax sent by the BBC seeking copyright clearance for Song 12, 20 years ago and naming Mr Pasha as the author of Song 12;

two pages on Mr Rahi’s letterhead to Heera cassettes, providing details of songs and their authors; and

faxes received in 1996 and 1997 from Mr Sadiq of Sargam Studios, certificates of remittances from the Second Claimant to Mr Sadiq and artworks for albums showing that this is the correct Sargam Studios and not the Sargam Studios identified in a Studio Letter produced by Mr Rahi, of which the proprietor is identified as Asim Raza.

artwork for cassette sleeves released by the Second Claimant and Real World records dating from 1988 crediting Mr Pasha as author of Song 12 and also artwork from sleeves for Mr Rahi’s albums containing Song 12 crediting Mr Pasha as the author of Song 12;

artwork for a cassette released by Lok Virsa, a government institute in Pakistan which identifies the author of Song 12 as Mr Pasha released in the late 1980’s; and

an original studio track sheet for Sargam Studios which does not match with the Studio Letter produced by Mr Rahi for Sargam Studios.

he wrote Song 2 in 1992. The agreement dated 4 August 1993, by which Mr Rahi assigned to Heera Cassette company his rights as a singer of Song 2 and confirmed that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 2 is genuine and Mr Sadiq witnessed it;

he wrote Song 3 in 1995. He was commissioned by the Second Claimant in 1996 to produce Mr Rahi’s Album 37 which was recorded by Mr Rahi at Sargam Studios and Mr Rahi sang Mr Sadiq’s name at the end of the recording of Song 3;

he wrote Song 4 in 1996 (apart from the hook line which is from a traditional song). He sold the rights to Song 4 to Tip Top Music in Lahore (music publishers);

he wrote Song 6 in 1993. He was commissioned by the Second Claimant to produce the Album 31 containing Song 6, sung by Mr Rahi and released by Heera Cassettes in Pakistan. Mr Rahi credited Mr Sadiq as author at the start of Song 6. He sent a letter to the Second Claimant in 1994 in enclosing the master for Album 31;

he arranged for Mr Pasha (who he says is the author of Song 12) to assign the rights in Song 12 to the Second Claimant and witnessed the assignment executed by Mr Pasha; and

in the Book, Mr Rahi has replaced Mr Sadiq’s name with his own for Songs 2-4 and 6 and has included in the Book a number of other songs written by Mr Sadiq and other famous poets over several hundred years.

Mr Rahi

a handwritten note appearing on a piece of paper purporting to be on Mr Rahi’s letterhead which the Claimants say relates to Mr Rahi’s albums 45 and 47 (which albums, Mr Rahi says do not exist); and

an agreement purporting to be dated 12/12/99 between Mr Rahi and Heera which he says purports to bear his signature but which he did not sign.

he owns his own recording studio;

he sometimes employs Rana (who used to own his own recording studio) as a recordist;

he witnessed the Assignment between Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi;

Rana was present when the Assignment was signed by Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi, but not Mr Rahi; and

he has never been employed by Mr Rahi to write any songs for him.

he is not and never has been employed by Mr Rahi. He has provided recordist and sound operator services to Mr Rahi and many other professional musicians and singers as an independent contractor; and

he was present at Mr Jutt’s studio, when Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi signed the Assignment but Mr Rahi was not present.

he owns Sohail Abbas Music Studio in Lahore;

he has provided his studio and services to Mr Rathi for 55 - 60 of his albums and he continues to provide those services;

Song 10 and Song 12 have been included in those 55 - 60 albums; and

he has witnessed Mr Rahi writing all his own songs.

a witness statement of Waqar Akhtar who says that he is the son of Mr Akhtar and that he witnessed his father sign the witness statement on which Mr Rahi relies, before Mr Akhtar died;

a witness statement of Naeem Akhtar who says that he is better known as Raja Naeem Gujrati, he says that he did not write Song 11; and

letters that purport to be from studios in Pakistan which provide confirmation of the albums recorded by Mr Rakhi at their studios (“the Studio Letters”).

Handwriting Experts

a document dated 17 May 2005 in which Mr Rahi apparently confirms that he had recorded a master cassette of 6 songs (none of them being any of the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings) in his voice and that of Naseebo Lal at Bhatti Studios (if genuine this is inconsistent with Mr Rahi’s assertion that he did not record any albums at Bhatti Studios) (“Document 1”);

an undated declaration purportedly signed by Mr Rahi confirming that he had recorded at Star Studios a master tape including songs of which the “poet” was SM Sadiq (“Document 2”). None of the songs are any of the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings, but, if genuine, the document contradicts Mr Rahi’s evidence that he never recorded any songs written by Mr Sadiq.

a declaration purportedly signed by Mr Rahi, dated 14 December 2004 that Mr Rahi had recorded 8 songs at Bhatti Studios (“Document 3”). None of the songs are any of the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings, but this document if genuine (and Documents 4 and 5 below) contradict Mr Rahi’s evidence that he did not record any albums at Bhatti Studios;

a declaration purportedly signed by Mr Rahi dated 4 October 2006 that Mr Rahi had recorded a CD containing 8 named songs at Bhatti Studios to (none of them being any of the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings) (“Document 4”);

a declaration purportedly signed by Mr Rahi dated 23 June 2006 that he had recorded 2 cassettes containing a total of 16 songs at Bhatti Studios (none of them being any of the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings) (“Document 5”); and

an agreement between Mr Rahi and the proprietors of Thar Productions recording that Mr Rahi had sung 16 songs, the rights in which he was transferring to Thar Productions (none of them being any of the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings) (“Document 6”). This is relevant because, in Part 18 replies, Mr Rahi denied authorising Thar Productions to release any of his albums.

Issue 1 - in respect of the 11 songs featured in each of the 26 videos which are the subject matter of Mr Rahi’s YouTube complaints against the First Claimant, was Mr Rahi the author of the words;

Issue 2 - was Mr Rahi the author of the words of Song 12 and did he licence or purport to licence Song 12 to Nusrat?

Issue 3 - if Issue 1 or Issue 2 are answered in the negative, were Mr Rahi’s complaints to YouTube malicious?

Issue 4 - if Issue 1 or issue 2 are answered in the negative were Mr Rahi’s complaints to YouTube fraudulent?

Issue 5 - if Issue 1 or Issue 2 are answered in the negative, were Mr Rahi’s complaints to YouTube intended to cause loss to the Claimants?

Issue 6 - did Mr Rahi’s complaints to YouTube interfere with relations between the Claimants and YouTube?

Issue 7 - did Mr Rahi’s complaints cause/are they likely to cause YouTube to terminate/suspend the accounts of the First and Second Claimants?

Issue 8 - did Mr Rahi act as part of a conspiracy/in common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to injure the economic interests of the First and Third Claimants?

Issue 9 - Did Mr Rahi’s actions cause loss to the Claimants; and

Issue 10 - if the Claimants are successful on liability, should the court award the injunction sought or other relief besides damages?

“15. An obvious difficulty which affects allegations and oral evidence based on recollection of events which occurred several years ago is the unreliability of human memory.

16.  While everyone knows that memory is fallible, I do not believe that the legal system has sufficiently absorbed the lessons of a century of psychological research into the nature of memory and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. One of the most important lessons of such research is that in everyday life we are not aware of the extent to which our own and other people's memories are unreliable and believe our memories to be more faithful than they are. Two common (and related) errors are to suppose: (1) that the stronger and more vivid is our feeling or experience of recollection, the more likely the recollection is to be accurate; and (2) that the more confident another person is in their recollection, the more likely their recollection is to be accurate.

17.  Underlying both these errors is a faulty model of memory as a mental record which is fixed at the time of experience of an event and then fades (more or less slowly) over time. In fact, psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. This is true even of so-called ‘flashbulb’ memories, that is memories of experiencing or learning of a particularly shocking or traumatic event. (The very description ‘flashbulb’ memory is in fact misleading, reflecting as it does the misconception that memory operates like a camera or other device that makes a fixed record of an experience.) External information can intrude into a witness's memory, as can his or her own thoughts and beliefs, and both can cause dramatic changes in recollection. Events can come to be recalled as memories which did not happen at all or which happened to someone else (referred to in the literature as a failure of source memory).

18.  Memory is especially unreliable when it comes to recalling past beliefs. Our memories of past beliefs are revised to make them more consistent with our present beliefs. Studies have also shown that memory is particularly vulnerable to interference and alteration when a person is presented with new information or suggestions about an event in circumstances where his or her memory of it is already weak due to the passage of time.

19.  The process of civil litigation itself subjects the memories of witnesses to powerful biases. The nature of litigation is such that witnesses often have a stake in a particular version of events. This is obvious where the witness is a party or has a tie of loyalty (such as an employment relationship) to a party to the proceedings. Other, more subtle influences include allegiances created by the process of preparing a witness statement and of coming to court to give evidence for one side in the dispute. A desire to assist, or at least not to prejudice, the party who has called the witness or that party's lawyers, as well as a natural desire to give a good impression in a public forum, can be significant motivating forces.

20.  Considerable interference with memory is also introduced in civil litigation by the procedure of preparing for trial. A witness is asked to make a statement, often (as in the present case) when a long time has already elapsed since the relevant events. The statement is usually drafted for the witness by a lawyer who is inevitably conscious of the significance for the issues in the case of what the witness does nor does not say. The statement is made after the witness's memory has been “refreshed” by reading documents. The documents considered often include statements of case and other argumentative material as well as documents which the witness did not see at the time or which came into existence after the events which he or she is being asked to recall. The statement may go through several iterations before it is finalised. Then, usually months later, the witness will be asked to re-read his or her statement and review documents again before giving evidence in court. The effect of this process is to establish in the mind of the witness the matters recorded in his or her own statement and other written material, whether they be true or false, and to cause the witness's memory of events to be based increasingly on this material and later interpretations of it rather than on the original experience of the events.

21.  It is not uncommon (and the present case was no exception) for witnesses to be asked in cross-examination if they understand the difference between recollection and reconstruction or whether their evidence is a genuine recollection or a reconstruction of events. Such questions are misguided in at least two ways. First, they erroneously presuppose that there is a clear distinction between recollection and reconstruction, when all remembering of distant events involves reconstructive processes. Second, such questions disregard the fact that such processes are largely unconscious and that the strength, vividness and apparent authenticity of memories is not a reliable measure of their truth.

22.  In the light of these considerations, the best approach for a judge to adopt in the trial of a commercial case is, in my view, to place little if any reliance at all on witnesses' recollections of what was said in meetings and conversations, and to base factual findings on inferences drawn from the documentary evidence and known or probable facts. This does not mean that oral testimony serves no useful purpose – though its utility is often disproportionate to its length. But its value lies largely, as I see it, in the opportunity which cross-examination affords to subject the documentary record to critical scrutiny and to gauge the personality, motivations and working practices of a witness, rather than in testimony of what the witness recalls of particular conversations and events. Above all, it is important to avoid the fallacy of supposing that, because a witness has confidence in his or her recollection and is honest, evidence based on that recollection provides any reliable guide to the truth.”

An added complication in this case is that the Claimants assert that Mr Rahi has fraudulently altered documents and You Tube sites to delete the names of the true writers of the lyrics to the 12 Songs and Mr Rahi says that agreements produced by the Claimants purporting to be signed by him and others are forgeries and that album covers that the Claimants rely upon are pirate copies of the albums which he has produced or are forgeries.

evasive and argumentative answers;

tangential speeches avoiding the questions he was asked;

placing strained meanings on his pleadings and witness statement;

blaming legal advisers for the content of documentation (statements of case and witness statements);

disclosure and evidence shortcomings;

self-contradiction in cross-examination;

internal inconsistency;

shifting his case; and

new evidence in cross-examination not contained in his witness statement.

could not remember what songs he had written (in contrast to his evidence in his witness statement and at trial that he recalled all the songs that he had written and in particular knew that he was the author of songs 2,3,4 and 6);

had been offered £20,000 to come to England and give evidence for the Claimants, but he wanted nothing to do with the dispute and would not give evidence for either party (in contrast to his evidence in cross-examination that he had not been offered £20,000 by the Claimant’s to give evidence for them, or any money);

referred to spending money and fabricating evidence in order to keep people in jail; and

said that Shabbir Ahmed, former director of the First Claimant and Third Claimant, had used his signature without his consent.

The transcripts record Mr Sadiq telling Mr Rahi that he could not recall what songs he had written, he could only remember 100 or 200, but in his witness statement and in cross-examination Mr Sadiq said that he could clearly recall all the songs he had written. Mr Sadiq’s explanation was that he was trying to be evasive. It is common ground that Mr Rahi made several complaints to the police in Pakistan about documents being forged and pirate copies of his albums being released. Mr Rahi produces a statement from “Mohammed Asif son of Abdul Rahim” who says that papers produced with reference to Heera Enterprises Karachi have “no connection with us” and “I am not aware of these papers being true or false….therefore I request that my name be taken out of the application”. It appears that Mohammed Asif wanted to avoid further involvement in the police investigation. Mr Sadiq may well therefore have had good reason to try to convince Mr Rahi that he was not going to give evidence for the Claimants even if he intended to do so. If Mr Rahi accepted that Mr Sadiq could not recall the songs that he had written, then he may believe that Mr Sadiq would be of no value as a witness for either side. It may also go some way to explaining why Mr Sadiq appears at some points in the conversation to be telling Mr Rahi that Mr Sadiq knew some dangerous people;

Mr Sadiq never explained why he said, during the telephone calls that there were no agreements for Mr Rahi’s songs but then in cross-examination he said that he had agreements with Mr Rahi in Pakistan. Again Mr Sadiq may have felt that saying that there were no agreements, when there were in fact some agreements, might make him appear less valuable as a witness;

Mr Sadiq said he was also being evasive when he told Mr Rahi several times that he would not attend court for either party but that was also his explanation for why he had said to Mr Rahi that the Claimants offered him £20,000 to come to England and give evidence but he had refused. It is difficult to see that telling Mr Rahi a lie about being offered £20,000 to come to England to give evidence for the Claimants could be described as being “evasive” (Mr Sadiq denied in cross- examination being offered £20,000 or any sum by the Claimants) but Mr Sadiq may have felt that telling Mr Rahi that he was not going to give evidence for the Claimants even though they had offered him £20,000 would somehow help persuade Mr Rahi that he was definitely not going to give evidence for the Claimants;

Mr Sadiq did not explain why he said that Shabbir Ahmed had used his signature without his consent, this could not, in my judgment be part of his scheme of being “evasive”; and

as for Mr Pearson’s point that Mr Sadiq referred to fabricating evidence and paying money to keep people in jail, this appears to me to be part of the veiled threats or attempts at intimidation that were passing between Mr Rahi and Mr Sadiq, during the course of the telephone calls.

the letters do not contain a statement of truth and, with the exception of Mr Abbas who made a witness statement, none of the proprietors of the studios attended trial to be cross-examined on what is contained in their letters;

the letters are all dated in early 2020, around the time that Mr Rahi obtained the Certificate from the IPO in respect of the Book. They do not purport to be contemporaneous with the recoding of the albums and appear to be part of an attempt by Mr Rahi to gather evidence that he wrote the songs in the Book;

the Claimants dispute the authenticity of the Studio Letters claiming that the addresses given for the studios and named proprietors are not the correct addresses and correct proprietors for those studios or at least were not when the albums they refer to were recorded. The Claimants also say that audio files and YouTube pages from Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel refer to Bhatti Studios as the studios in which Mr Rahi recorded albums which the signatories to the Studio Letters say were recorded at their studios and artwork for Mr Rahi’s albums also identify studios other than those identified in the Studio Letters as the studios in which Mr Rahi’s albums were recorded; and

Mr Abbas who says that he is the proprietor of Sohail Abbas Studios did make a witness statement and did attend for cross-examination. During his cross-examination Mr Abbas said that Mr Rahi had brought with him to his studio the details of the albums he had recorded at Mr Abbas’s studio already written out. Mr Abbas could not recall what had been recorded at his studio but he checked Mr Rahi’s list against cassettes that Mr Rahi brought with him. That does not involve Mr Abbas independently verifying from his own records what Mr Rahi had recorded at his studio or the details of the albums (including the crediting of Mr Rahi as singer, lyricist and composer of the songs on the albums) included in his studio letter. Also Mr Rahi says that he does not have any original cassettes of his albums. Having heard from Mr Abbas in cross-examination I have concerns about the process by which Mr Rahi obtained the letter from Mr Abbas and the other studios, specifically whether they really represent the studio proprietors providing any sort of independent confirmation of what Mr Rahi recorded at their studios (assuming in Mr Rahi’s favour that the Studios and their proprietors actually exist (disputed by the Claimants) and which I am unable to determine on the evidence before me).

DJ Cassettes company also known as DJ;

Heera/Heera Stereo/Heera Enterprises;

NMC/NMC Enterprises;

RGH (Rehmat Gramophone House);

NVP (New Voice Productions);

Tip Top/Tip Top Recording Company; and

TP Gold also known as Thar Productions.

cassettes released by DJ Music which contains Song 1 and Song 8 which do not credit any author of those songs;

cassettes released by Heera/ Heera Stereo crediting Mr Sadiq as author of Song 2, Song 3 and Song 6, Mr Pasha as author of Song 12 and not crediting any author for Song 7;

cassettes released by Tip Top crediting Mr Sadiq as author of Song 4 and Inayat Ali as author of Song 5; and

a cassette released by TP Gold not crediting any author of Song 10.

“King of Folk Akram Rahi Volume 28”. The Claimant’s digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by Heera Stereo and attributes authorship of 3 of the 8 songs to Mr Sadiq (including Song 2) and the remaining 5 songs to authors other than Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi’s digital image of a cassette sleeve shown as released by TMC Cassette attributes authorship of all the songs to Mr Rahi;

Akram Rahi Volume 75. The Claimants’ digital image of a cassette sleeve shown as released by DJ Music does not attribute authorship of any of the 8 songs to any author. Mr Rahi’s digital image of a cassette sleeve, shown as released by Times Stereo attributes authorship of all the songs to Mr Rahi;

Album 1. The Claimants’ digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by TP Gold, the sleeve refers to 9 songs include Song 10 (Maa Mari Te Rishtey) the sleeve does not attribute authorship of any of the 9 songs to anyone. Mr Rahi’s digital image of a cassette sleeve shown as released by AR Music attributes authorship of all the songs to Mr Rahi;

Akram Rahi Volume 58. The Claimants’ digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by Heera Cassettes, it has 8 songs on it and the sleeve does not attribute authorship of any of the 8 songs to anyone. Mr Rahi’s digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by TMC Cassette and attributes authorship of all the songs to Mr Rahi;

Akram Rahi Volume 46. The Claimants’ digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by Heera Stereo, it has 8 songs on it, authorship of 5 of the 8 songs is attributed to Mr Sadiq and only 1 to Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi’s digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by TMC Cassette and attributes authorship of all the songs to Mr Rahi; and

Akram Rahi Volume 105. The Claimants’ digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by Fresh Music, the sleeve attributes authorship of 2 of the 8 songs to Mr Sadiq and the remaining songs to other authors (not Mr Rahi). Mr Rahi’s digital image of a cassette sleeve is shown as released by Super Music and attributes authorship of all the songs to Mr Rahi (including Song 12);

Mr Rahi’s solicitors originally indicated that he would produce the original cassette sleeves for inspection by the Claimants’ solicitors but subsequently, Mr Rahi’s solicitors said that he did not have the original cassette sleeves, but they did not explain why;

the Claimants produced a video of a radio interview of Mr Rahi which was played to Mr Rahi in cross-examination, in which Mr Rahi said that when record companies were closing down, he obtained from them one or two copies of all of his cassettes in order to have a record of his work. Mr Rahi was also shown an image on Rana’s Facebook page of a very large number of physical cassettes of albums apparently released with Mr Rahi as the singer (presumably to emphasise the large number of cassettes of Mr Rahi singing which had been released);

when asked what had become of the original cassettes and cassette covers referred to in the radio interview and shown in an image on Rana’s Facebook page, Mr Rahi said he had kept them in a room at his home but that there was a fire in the room in which they were and all the cassettes were destroyed but that he had kept digital images on a hard drive. Mr Rahi could not recall whether this happened before or after the radio interview, but he said that, even if the fire happened before the radio interview he would not have mentioned the fire, in that interview;

I found Mr Rahi’s suggestion that all of his copies of his cassettes were destroyed in a fire completely implausible, particularly as this is not mentioned in any letters sent to the Claimants’ solicitors by Mr Rahi’s solicitors as a reason why Mr Rahi could not produce the original cassette sleeves (I note that new evidence given in cross-examination not contained in a witness statement was noted by Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson  as an indicator of unsatisfactory evidence see paragraph 88 above); and

Mr Rahi said, during his cross-examination that the master copies of his albums were filed with the court in Pakistan. When asked why he had not disclosed them in these proceedings, Mr Rahi said that he thought these proceedings were about authorship of songs and not copyright. That is no explanation for failing to disclose master tapes in these proceedings, which Mr Rahi suggested would provide evidence that he was the author of the songs on those albums to which he master tapes relate, an issue (in relation to the 12 Songs) which Mr Rahi well knew is central to the disputes in Claim 72 and Claim 92 and of some importance to Mr Rahi’s position in relation to Claim 115 (disclosure and evidence shortcomings noted as an indication of unsatisfactory evidence by Lewsion J in Painter v Hutchinson).

Mr Rahi was played an audio of an introduction in which Mr Rahi says “this video cassette and audio cassette was released by DJ Cassettes”. Mr Rahi said that an agent had offered him more money than he could imagine to record an album. The agent said that the owner of the company that wanted to release one of Mr Rahi’s albums was in Canada and he asked Mr Rahi to make the audio clip for him so that it could be sent to Canada. Later the agent tried to reduce the amount of money that Mr Rahi would be paid, but Mr Rahi refused and he never recorded the album;

Mr Rahi was played an audio clip in which he says “Thanks to Tip Top for giving you Volumes 7 and 8 and now presenting Volume 9”. Mr Rahi said he had to go abroad and Tip Top asked him to make the clip before he went. There was a similar disagreement about money and the deal did not go through so he did not authorise Tip Top to release any album. The problem with that is that the clip appears to thank Tip Top for already having released Volumes 7 and 8 and refers to “presenting Volume 9”;

Mr Rahi was played an audio clip in which he says “Listeners from Akram Rahi and Heera Cassettes peace to all listeners and wholeheartedly Eid Mubarak in your service. Listeners, after all you people’s insistence once again we have joined together with Heera Cassettes and me with Volume 58”. Mr Rahi said that he only ever worked on a commission basis and he spoke to Heera about the commission and the agreement never went through. He went to another publisher to publish Volume 58 because he owned the rights. The problem with that explanation is that the clip refers to joining together with Heera Cassettes “once again” indicating that Heera Cassettes had released albums for Mr Rahi before he recorded the introduction and it is yet another case of Mr Rahi asserting that he recorded an introduction to an album before he had made the album, finalised an oral agreement or got paid; and

finally Mr Rahi was played an audio clip of him saying “Heera Cassettes will present to you Volume 53 i.e. Volume 53”. Mr Rahi said that he recorded this clip at the same time as the other Heera introduction and the agreement to release Volume 53 similarly fell through.

Documents Mr Rahi denies signing/putting his thumb print on

an agreement between Mr Rahi and Heera Enterprises Karachi, by which Mr Rahi assigns to Heera Enterprises his rights in Volume 45;

a declaration dated 17 May 2005 that Mr Rahi had recorded 6 named songs at Bhatti Studios with Naseebo Lal; and

an agreement between Mr Rahi and Thar Productions, by which Mr Rahi sells the rights in 8 named songs that he has recorded, to Thar Productions.

the First Claimant has produced the original vinyl record which it says is of Shaukat Ali singing the song “Jagga” in 1976. The vinyl record appears on its face genuine and is shown as having been released in 1976. Mr Rahi made a bare assertion, in cross-examination, that the vinyl record is not genuine and then said that, listening to the recording, he could tell that it was not recorded as long ago as 1976, but this of itself was another bare assertion, Mr Rahi did not explain how he could tell that the recording was not made as long ago as 1976. Neither assertion is made in Mr Rahi’s defence or witness statement. As I have already explained, I attribute no evidential value to Mr Rahi’s bare assertions;

the First Claimant has produced a book of Punjabi Indian songs from 1960 containing the song “Jagga” which includes the line (in Indian Punjabi) “if I had known Jagga would die instead of one I could have had two sons”. That line is substantially repeated in Pakistani Punjabi, in both the song at page Song 1050 of the Book and in the song which I am satisfied Mr Shaukat Ali sang in 1976; and

Language Reach (certified translators) have compared the lyrics from Shaukat Ali’s 1976 version of the song “Jagga” with the version at Song 1050 of the Book. Of 22 lines of Song 1050, 14 appear to be identical or nearly identical to the version sung by Mr Shaukat Ali. This includes the line “if I knew Jagga would die I would have given birth to two instead of one” and the line “Jaggeya Jaggeya you went to the other side and the door is shut” which is sung repeatedly in the version sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976 and written repeatedly in the version appearing at Song 1050 in the Book

having concluded that the vinyl record of Shaukat Ali singing the song “Jagga” in 1976 is genuine and that the lyrics sung by Shaukat Ali in that version are substantially identical to the lyrics in Song 1050 and Mr Rahi does not claim to have written Song 1050 before 1976, the only logical conclusion is that Mr Rahi copied Shaukat Ali’s version or Shaukat Ali’s version and Mr Rahi’s version have a common source;

the Claimants have produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve for Volume 85 of songs sung by Mr Rahi released by DJ Music in 2005 which includes the song Jagga and does not credit anyone as author of it. The Claimants have also produced the original cassette and cassette sleeve. Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette cover of an album identified as Album 9 (but not the original) shown as released by Real Stereo which includes “Jagga” as one of 8 songs on that album and attributes authorship of all the songs on the album to Mr Rahi;

Mr McArthur did not carry out any analysis of the digital images of the DJ Cassette sleeve, Volume 85 or the Real Stereo cassette sleeve, Album 9. Mr McArthur did however compare the digital image of the album sleeve produced by the First Claimant of Volume 75 released by DJ Cassettes with the digital image of the album sleeve produced by Mr Rahi for Volume 75 shown as released by Times Stereo (see paragraphs 123 and 124 (b) above). Mr McArthur concluded that the Times Stereo digital image produced by Mr Rahi was created by copying and digitally altering the digital image of the DJ Music Cassette cover for Album 75, in order to produce a copy of Volume 75 showing it as released by Times Stereo and Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album. I have accepted Mr McArthur’s opinion. As a consequence, I also reject Mr Rahi’s assertion that he never authorised DJ Cassettes to release his albums. I am also satisfied that Album 85 produced by the Claimants both as a digital image and in the form of the original cassette is a genuine cassette which Mr Rahi authorised DJ Cassettes to release. The song “Jagga” on the DJ Cassettes album does not credit anyone as author of the song;

given that I have accepted Mr McArthur’s expert opinion and concluded that Mr Rahi or someone on his behalf created (and Mr Rahi produced in these proceedings) at least 6 false digital images of cassette sleeves, altered to credit Mr Rahi as the author of the songs on those albums, I cannot attribute any evidential weight to the fact that Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve purportedly released by Real Stereo (Album 9) which attributes authorship of Jagga to Mr Rahi. In contrast, I have accepted that the DJ Cassette Album 85 is genuine and Mr Rahi authorised the release of it and the album sleeve to this album does not attribute authorship of the song “Jagga” to anyone (consistent with the First Claimant’s case that it is a traditional song of which the author is unknown);

I have already observed that, where the Claimants have produced digital images of cassette covers (only in digital form or in digital form and the original cassette) Mr Rahi does not allege that the Claimants fabricated those cassette sleeves, but rather that they are cassette sleeves for albums which are “pirate copies” of the albums that he authorised other companies to release. However there is no reason why, if the DJ Cassette sleeve were a pirate copy of the Real Stereo Album 9 (which I do not accept it is) it would not attribute authorship of the song “Jagga” to Mr Rahi just like the Real Stereo album does. Mr Rahi’s assertion that the DJ Cassettes cassette sleeve is a pirate copy, does not therefore explain why (on Mr Rahi’s case) names other than Mr Rahi’s name would be inserted as the authors of songs on the “pirate” cassette sleeve; and

Mr Rahi refers to the PRS register crediting him as the author of the song “Jagga”, however the Claimants have produced a copy of a PRS register from 1997 crediting Shaukat Ali as the author of “Jagga” which is inconsistent with the later entry of 2013 crediting Mr Rahi as the author of “Jagga”. The PRS register is therefore demonstrably unreliable in naming the true author of the song “Jagga” and appears simply to have credited the singer of the song, as its author.

Mr Rahi’s solicitors stated that to the best of Mr Rahi’s belief he had never authorised Heera to release any of his albums, but I have found (see paragraph 134 (c) and (d) and 135) that he did authorise Heera to release his albums;

Song 2 appears on the cassette sleeve produced by the First Claimant for the album “Akram Rahi King of Folk” Volume 28 shown as released by Heera Cassettes. The First Claimant has produced both a digital image and the original cassette and cassette sleeve for Volume 28 released by Heera Cassettes. I have accepted the expert evidence of Mr McArthur that the digital image of the cassette sleeve for Volume 28 produced by Mr Rahi, purportedly released by TMC Cassettes, has been copied from the digital image produced by the First Claimant, of a cassette sleeve released by Heera Cassettes and digitally altered to change the name of the company releasing the album from Heera Cassettes to TMC Cassettes and to credit Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album in the place of those authors credited on the Heera Cassette version (see paragraph 124 (a) and 127 above). The Heera Cassettes version credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 2. I find that the digital image of the TMC Cassettes cassette sleeve was fabricated, specifically for the purpose of providing false evidence, in support of Mr Rahi’s claim in these proceedings, that he wrote Song 2;

Mr Rahi produces a complaint made by him to the Pakistani police in October 2021 apparently about pirate copies of his albums being produced. Mr Rahi also produces an affidavit which he says was submitted to the police by Mohammed Asif of Heera Stereo/Heera Gold. In that affidavit, Mr Asif describes himself as the son of Abdul Rahim and says that the papers that the Applicant (Mr Rahi) has produced with reference to Heera Enterprises Karachi do not have any connection with “us” and I am not aware of the papers being true or false…. therefore I request that my name should be taken out of the application..” I attribute no evidential value to the police report or the affidavit of Mr Asif because: (i) the police report is self-serving; (ii) it is unclear which papers Mr Asif is referring to; (iii) even if the documents referred to include the cassette sleeve for Album 28 it is unclear on what basis Mr Asif would have any knowledge of whether the cassettes sleeve for Album 28 has anything to do with Heera Cassettes; (iv) Mr Asif says that he does not know if the documents are true or false; (v) in the final sentence Mr Asif requests that his name be taken out of the application. It is clear that Mr Asif’s wished to avoid being part of the ongoing police investigation and this may have influenced what he says in the affidavit; (vi) Mr Asif did not attend for cross-examination and so there has been no opportunity to clarify the position in relation to (ii) – (v); and (vii) Mr Rahi complained to the police that Mr Asif, or Mr Asif’s company did have something to do with producing pirate copies of his albums and on any view, Mr Asif’s affidavit does not support that contention;

the First Claimant has produced an agreement dated 4 August 1993, by which Mr Rahi sells to Heera Cassette company his rights as the singer of the 8 songs on the album, Volume 28 (including Song 2) and declares that Mr Sadiq is the author of the 8 songs. This document was not examined by either handwriting expert (there is no thumbprint on it). There is nothing, other than Mr Rahi’s bare assertion, to support his contention that it is a forgery. It was open to Mr Rahi to submit the agreement of 4 August 1993 to his hand writing expert so that she could express an opinion as to whether the signature appearing on it was Mr Rahi’s, he did not do so. Given that I have found Mr Rahi to be a dishonest witness for reasons I have already given, I attach no weight to his bare assertion that the agreement of 4 August 1993 is a forgery. The agreement combined with the First Claimant producing the original Heera cassette sleeve and cassette for Volume 28 containing the 8 songs referred to in the agreement, is powerful evidence that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 2;

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi authorised Heera to release Volume 28, that he knew that the sleeve to Volume 28 credited Mr Sadiq as author of Song 2 and that he would not have agreed to Mr Sadiq being credited as the author of Song 2, if he did not believe that to be true (that this was his belief at the time is supported by the acknowledgement by Mr Rahi, in the agreement of 4 August 1993 that Mr Sadiq is the author of Song 2);

Mr Rahi sings Song 2 in the movie Danda Peer. The First Claimant has produced a confirmation by Abdul Wali Khan dated 27 November 2020 that he has assigned to the First Claimant the rights in the film Danda Peer. I have found that, faced with this evidence Mr Rahi made up a story about having a “gentleman’s agreement” with Mr Gilani’s assistant to the effect that Mr Rahi would still own the rights in Song 2 and that the film, Danda Peer would only be shown in cinemas and not released as a video or audio recording (see paragraph 133 above);

I have found (paragraph 141) that Mr Rahi sings “Sadiq” at the end of Song 2 as a credit to Mr Sadiq as author of Song 2, I find that, he would not have done so, if Mr Rahi did not believe, at the time that Mr Sadiq was the author of Song 2; and

Mr Sadiq says that he is the author of Song 2. Mr Rahi points to Mr Sadiq confirming, during one of his telephone conversations with Mr Rahi, that Mr Sadiq could not recall which songs he had written, which is inconsistent with Mr Sadiq now asserting that he wrote Song 2. I have accepted Mr Sadiq’s evidence in cross-examination that, by saying, during the telephone call with Mr Rahi that he could not recall which songs he had written, he was attempting to mislead Mr Rahi into believing that he would not give evidence for the Claimants and that he would in any event be of little value as a witness if he could not recall which songs he had written and that this, Mr Sadiq hoped, would get Mr Rahi “off his back” (see paragraph 107 (a)) above. Whilst I have expressed concerns about the evidence of Mr Sadiq, I have not concluded (unlike Mr Rahi) that Mr Sadiq deliberately gave false evidence to the court and for that reason I attribute more weight to Mr Sadiq’s assertion that he wrote Song 2, than to Mr Rahi’s assertion that Mr Rahi wrote it.

The Claimants have produced: (i) an assignment dated 28 August 2001 by Mr Sadiq to the Second Claimant of Mr Sadiq’s rights as author of songs including Song 3; and (b) a confirmation by Abdul Wali Khan dated 27 November 2020 that he has assigned to the First Claimant the rights in the film Jeeva Gujjar, which includes Song 3, sung by Naseebo Lal;

in his defence, Mr Rahi says that Mr Sadiq acknowledged to him that Song 3, used in the film Jeeva Gujjar, is a cover version of Mr Rahi’s song. No such acknowledgment is contained in the transcripts of Mr Rahi’s telephone calls with Mr Sadiq produced by Mr Rahi and Mr Rahi has produced no evidence to support his bare assertion that Mr Sadiq made any such acknowledgment. I reject Mr Rahi’s bare assertion;

the Heera stereo cassette sleeve, for the soundtrack of the film Jeeva Gujjar produced by the Claimants and featuring Naseebo Lal as singer credits the writing of all the songs in the film to Mr Sadiq, including Song 3. Mr Rahi has not asserted that the cassette cover is a pirate copy of the original authorised version of the cassette of the sound track for Jeeva Gujjar (nor could he assert this, as he does for cassettes on which he is the singer). Heera was a company associated with the Second Claimant and the assignments referred to in paragraph 160 (a) above, when taken together with the Heera cassette cover are powerful evidence that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 3;

the cassette sleeve for Mr Rahi’s Volume 37 shown as released by the Second Claimant credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 3. The cassette sleeve has 8 songs on it, 4 of which credit Mr Sadiq as author (including Song 3) and 4 credit other authors (not Mr Rahi);

Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of his album Volume 72 shown as released by TMC Cassettes, which credits Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album. The 8 songs on that album sleeve are not the same as those appearing on Volume 37 shown as released by the Second Claimant, but Song 3 is on the album sleeve for Volume 72;

whilst Mr McArthur did not compare the digital image of the album Volume 37 shown as released by the Second Claimant with the digital image of the album Volume 72 shown as released by TMC Cassettes, the artwork for the two albums is the same. Given that Volume 37 and Volume 72 have the same artwork, on the balance of probabilities, I find that one was copied from the other. For the reasons explained in paragraph 157 (e) above, Mr Rahi’s suggestion that the Heera cassette sleeve is a pirate copy of the TMC Cassettes sleeve makes no sense. The opinion of Mr McArthur, having inspected 6 digital images of albums produced by Mr Rahi and 6 digital images of the same albums with the same artwork produced by the Claimants, was that the digital images produced by Mr Rahi were copies of the digital images produced by the Claimants which had been digitally manipulated to show Mr Rahi’s versions as released by different companies and Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on those albums. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Rahi or someone on his behalf and at his direction copied across the digital image of the artwork on Volume 37 to create Volume 72 and altered the name of the company releasing the album to TMC Cassettes and the name of the author of all the songs on Volume 72 (including Song 3) to Mr Rahi specifically for the purpose of providing fabricated evidence in support of Mr Rahi’s claim in these proceedings that he wrote Song 3. It follows that I accept that the cassette sleeve to Mr Rahi’s album Volume 37, which I accept Mr Rahi authorised the Second Claimant to release, which credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 3, supports the conclusion that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 3, but the digital image produced by Mr Rahi of a cassette cover purporting to have been released by TMC Cassettes and to credit Mr Rahi as the author of Song 3, does not support the conclusion that Mr Rahi wrote Song 3;

I have found that Mr Rahi sings “Sadiq” in a recording of Song 3 at the end of that song as a recognition that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 3 (see paragraph 141 above). I find that Mr Rahi would not have done so, had he not believed, when making that recording, that Mr Sadiq was the author of Song 3;

Mr Rahi says that a Studio Letter from Sargam Studios confirms that Mr Rahi recorded Volume 72 at that studio and that the cassette was published by TMC Cassettes. I have explained in paragraph 116 above why I attribute no weight to the content of the Studio Letters; and

for the reasons set out in paragraph 159 (h) above, I attribute more weight to Mr Sadiq’s assertion that he wrote Song 3, than to the evidence of Mr Rahi that he wrote it.

Mr Rahi claims that he wrote Song 4 in 1993, but the Claimants have produced a copy of a settlement of a High Court action dated 18 November 1981, between the Second Claimant and Rolex Trading Company Ltd (in which proceedings the Second Claimant alleged infringement of copyright by Rolex, in relation to certain songs (including Song 4) and Rolex undertook not to import the songs into the UK). The settlement mentioning Song 4 was, on its face agreed 12 years before Mr Rahi claims to have written Song 4. There is nothing to suggest that the settlement document is not genuine;

I have accepted that Mr Rahi did authorise Tip Top to release his albums in spite of his solicitors saying that, to the best of Mr Rahi’s knowledge, he did not do so (see paragraph 134 (b) and 135 above);

the Claimants have, as I have produced: (i) an assignment dated 17 April 2001 by Mr Sadiq to Silver Streak Records Limited (a company associated with the Second Claimant) of Mr Sadiq’s rights as author of songs, those songs include Song 4; and (b) a confirmation by Abdul Wali Khan dated 27 November 2020 that he has assigned to the First Claimant the rights in the film Jeeva Gujjar, which includes Song 4, sung by Naseebo Lal. This is powerful evidence that Mr Sadiq is the author of Song 4;

the Claimants have produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve and the original cassette and sleeve for a cassette shown as released by Tip Top Cassettes, Volume 2 of songs sung by Mr Rahi. The cassette sleeve includes Song 4 and credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 4;

Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve (but no original cassette or cassette sleeve) shown as released P & P Music Volume 23 which contains the same songs, sung by Mr Rahi as Volume 2 shown as released by Tip Top, but which credits Mr Rahi as author of all the songs on the album (including Song 4);

whilst McArthur did not compare the digital image of Volume 2 shown as released by Tip Top, with the digital image of Volume 23 shown released by P & P Music, the artwork for both Volume 2 and Volume 23 is the same and I am satisfied, for that reason, that one was copied from the other. On the balance of probabilities, given: (i) Mr McArthur’s findings that digital images of 6 cassette sleeves produced by Mr Rahi had been copied across and altered to create the digital images of cassette sleeves produced by Mr Rahi for the same albums; and (ii) the Claimants, but not Mr Rahi have produced the original cassette and cassette sleeves; and (iii) Mr Rahi has given an implausible explanation for being unable to produce the original P & P Music cassette and cassette sleeve, I am satisfied that Mr Rahi, or someone acting on his behalf and under his instructions, copied across the digital image of the artwork for Volume 2 released by Tip Top Cassettes and altered it to create a digital image showing Volume 23 released by P & P Music and Mr Rahi as the author all the songs on the cassette (including Song 4) specifically for the purpose of providing fabricated evidence in support of Mr Rahi’s claim in these proceedings that he wrote Song 4;

Mr Rahi suggested that Volume 2 is a pirate copy of Volume 23 and that on that pirate copy the names of the author of the songs has been changed from his name to erroneously credit others as the authors of the songs (including Mr Sadiq, as the author of Song 4). Mr Rahi’s assertion makes no sense for the reasons noted by me in paragraph 157 (e) above and supports my conclusion that Volume 2 released by Tip Top Cassettes is the original authorised version of Mr Rahi’s album that includes Song 4;

I have found that, in an audio of Mr Rahi singing Song 4, he sings “Sadiq” at the end of that song and I have found that he does so in recognition that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 4 (see paragraph 141) I do not consider that Mr Rahi would have done so, if he did not believe that Mr Sadiq was the author of Song 4;

the Claimants have produced a book published by the Punjabi Institute of Language Arts and Culture, in 2007 which credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 4; and

I attribute more weight to the evidence of Mr Sadiq that he wrote Song 4 than to the evidence of Mr Rahi that he wrote Song 4, for the reasons set out in paragraph 159 (h) above.

I have inspected an original cassette and cassette sleeve for a cassette which on its face was released in 1980 by EMI showing Inayat Ali as the singer of a song entitled Babul Meriyan Guddiyan;

the Claimants have produced a video of Inayat Ali performing the song Babul Meriyan Guddiyan which appears to be from the 1980’s, in the video, Inayat Ali says that he is the author of the song; and

the Claimants have produced an assignment from Inayat Ali to the Third Claimant dated 6 July 2015 of the rights in various songs, which that the assignment confirms were written by Inayat Ali, including Babul Meriyan Guddiyan.

I have already said that I am satisfied that Inayat Ali wrote the Hook Line/Chorus in or around 1980;

I have found that Mr Rahi, or someone acting at his direction, produced a digital image of an album sleeve, by copying across the digital image from the genuine digital image of the album, released by Tip Top cassette Volume 2 and altering it so that it erroneously purported to show Volume 23 as having been released by P & P Music and Mr Rahi, rather than Mr Khaki, as the author of the Song 234. My finding does mean that I can attribute no weight to the digital image of the P & P Music cassette sleeve purporting to credit Mr Rahi as author of Song 5, but at least some weight to the Tip Top cassette sleeve which credits Mr Khaki as the author of Song 234; and

I am satisfied that Mr Khaki is the author of the Song 234 (other than the Hook Line/Chorus) because: (i) Mr Khaki is credited as the author in what I have found to be the genuine version of the relevant album sung by Mr Rahi, namely Volume 2 released by Tip Top which contains Song 234 sung by Mr Rahi; (ii) there would be no reason for Mr Raji to authorise Tip Top to release Volume 2 (as I have found he did) crediting Mr Khaki as the author of Song 234, unless Mr Rahi believed that Mr Khaki was the author of the additional words that distinguish Song 234 from Inayat Ali’s 1980 song; and (c) the Claimants have produced an audio of Mr Rahi singing Song 234 and I am satisfied, having listened to that audio, that Mr Rahi sings “Khaki” at the end of Song 234, again there would be no reason for Mr Rahi to do that, unless Mr Rahi believed that Mr Khaki was the author of the additional words.

the Claimants have produced: (i) a cassette sleeve showing that Mr Rahi’s Volume 3 released by Heera Cassette’s in Pakistan, includes Song 6 and credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 6; (ii) a cassette sleeve for the soundtrack of the film Dam Mast Qalandar, produced by Mr Gilani and released by Heera Stereo Cassette’s which includes Song 6 and credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 6; and (iii) a cassette sleeve showing Mr Rahi’s Volume 31 released by the Second Claimant in 1994 including Song 6, which credits Mr Sadiq as author of Song 6;

Naseebo Lal can be heard singing “Sadiq” at the end of Song 6 in the version in her album Aa Sajna;

the Claimants have produced an assignment dated 17 April 2001 from Mr Sadiq to Silver Streak Records of the rights in various songs which the assignment says Mr Sadiq has written, including Song 6;

the Claimants have produced an assignment of the rights of the film Dam Mast Qalender to the Third Claimant;

Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve shown to have been released by TMC Cassettes as Volume 31. The TMC Cassette sleeve for Volume 31 credits Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album;

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Rahi or someone acting on his behalf and at his direction falsified the digital image of Volume 31 purportedly released by TMC Cassette, crediting Mr Rahi, instead of Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 6, specifically for the purpose of providing fabricated evidence in support of Mr Rahi’s claim in these proceedings that he wrote Song 6. I am satisfied of these matters because: (i) I have accepted that Mr Rahi authorised the release of albums by Heera (in spite of his solicitors saying that, to the best of Mr Rahi’s knowledge he had not authorised Heera to release any albums on which Mr Rahi sings (paragraphs 134 (c) and (d) and 135); (ii) whilst Mr McArthur did not compare the digital image of Volume 31 released by the Second Claimant with the digital image of Volume 31 shown to have been released by TMC Cassettes, the artwork from both cassette sleeves is the same. Mr McArthur compared 6 digital images of cassette covers produced by Mr Rahi with 6 digital images of cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants, where the artwork was the same, Mr McArthur concluded that the digital images produced by Mr Rahi had been created by copying digital images of the cassette covers produced by the Claimants and altering them to change the name of the company releasing them and the credits to authors of the songs on the album; and (iii) Mr Rahi suggests that Volume 31 as released by Heera is a pirate copy of Volume 31 released by TMC Cassettes. For the reasons I have set out in paragraph 157 (e) it does not make sense for a pirate copy of a cassette to change the name of the author of the songs credited on the original cassette cover to different names on the pirate copy of that original cassette cover;

importantly I have found that Mr Rahi made an audio introduction to Song 6 in which he confirmed that Mr Sadiq had written it and I have rejected Mr Rahi’s attempt to suggest that the audio introduction is not intended to refer to Song 6 and his explanation as to how he came to record the introduction (see paragraph 136 above). Mr Rahi would not have introduced Song 6 as having been written by Mr Sadiq had he not believe this to be the case, at the time that he recorded the introduction;

Insofar as there is a difference between the song sung by Naseebo Lal in the film Dam Mast Qalandar and the version sung by Mr Rahi, it makes no difference, because I am satisfied that both versions were written by Mr Sadiq; and

Mr Rahi refers to his telephone call with Mr Sadiq, when Mr Sadiq said that he could not remember which songs he had written but, for the reasons given by me in paragraph 159 (h) above I prefer the evidence of Mr Sadiq that he is the author of Song 6 to the evidence of Mr Rahi that he is the author of Song 6.

the Claimants have produced an original cassette and cassette sleeve for Mr Rahi’s Volume 75 which does not credit anyone as author of any of the songs on the album. Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of Volume 75 shown as released by Times Stereo, which has the same artwork and songs as the DJ Music cassetteVolume 75, but which credits Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album;

I have rejected Mr Rahi’s story of how he came to record an audio introduction: “this video cassette and audio cassette was released by DJ Cassettes” as implausible and I find Mr Rahi did authorise DJ Music to release at least some of his albums in spite of Mr Rahi’s solicitors saying that, to the best of Mr Rahi’s knowledge he never authorised DJ Cassettes to release any of his albums (see paragraphs 134 (a) and 135);

although Mr McArthur has not compared the digital image of the DJ Music Volume 75 cassette sleeve with the digital image of the Times Stereo volume 75 cassette sleeve, the artwork for the two albums is the same and I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Rahi, or someone acting on his instructions copied the digital image of the DJ Music Volume 75 cassette sleeve to create the digital image of the Times Stereo Volume 75 cassette sleeve, amending the digital image to show Times Stereo as the company releasing the album and the name of the author of all the songs on it as Mr Rahi specifically for the purpose of providing fabricated evidence in support of Mr Rahi’s claim in these proceedings that he wrote Song 8. My reasons are the same as those set out in paragraph 161 (e) above in relation to Song 4;

Mr Rahi’s suggestion that the DJ Cassettes Volume 75 cassette and sleeve is a pirate copy of the Times Stereo Volume 75 cassette and sleeve, makes no sense for the reasons set out by me in paragraph 157 (e) above;

I attribute no weight to the studio letter produced by Mr Rahi, which suggests that Song 8 was recorded at that studio, for the reasons set out in paragraph 116 above;

the Claimants have produced a CD sleeve and original CD shown as a released by Kamlee Records of an album by Tariq Khan which credits Mr Akhtar as the author of Song 8 and on the CD, Tariq Khan sings the name “Akhtar” at the end of Song 8. No reason was suggested as to why Tariq Khan would sing the name Akhtar at the end of Song 8 other than Tariq Khan doing so, because he believed that Mr Akhtar was the author of Song 8;

Mr Bhullar says that he recalls producing an album containing Song 8 for Kamlee Records, sung by Tariq Khan and he recalls that the author’s name was Mr Akhtar, who lived in Manchester. Whilst that evidence is based upon Mr Bhullar’s recollection, which may be unreliable, Mr Bullar’s evidence was not challenged;

the Claimants have produced an assignment dated 1 June 2006 by which Mr Akhtar assigned to the Third Claimant the rights in songs that the assignment says Mr Akhtar wrote, including Song 8. Mr Rahi asked his hand writing expert, Ms Radley to examine the assignment and consider whether the assignment bore Mr Akhtar’s genuine signature. Ms Radley said that her examination of the signature compared to known signatures of Mr Akhtar was inconclusive. I have no reason to suppose, other than a bare assertion by Mr Rahi, to which I attach no weight, and the witness statement of Mr Akhtar, to which I will refer next, that the assignment is not genuine;

Mr Rahi has produced a witness statement from Mr Akhtar, in which Mr Akhtar (now deceased) confirms that he did not write Song 8 or Song 9 and Mr Rahi has produced a witness statement from Mr Akhtar’s son in which he confirms that he saw his father sign his witness statement. For the reasons explained by me in paragraph 114 I have concluded that I am unable to attribute material weight to the witness statement of Mr Akhtar, as evidence that he did not write Song 8;

in paragraph 146 – 147 above I refer to the page from Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel produced by the Claimants which credited Mr Akhtar as the author of Song 8. In those paragraphs I rejected Mr Rahi’s suggestion that the page from his YouTube channel had been altered by the Claimants to show Mr Akhtar is the author of Song 8. Both the existence of that page and Mr Rahi’s attempt to explain it away, which I have rejected, support the conclusion that Mr Akhtar wrote Song 8, notwithstanding the content of his witness statement, because Mr Rahi’s own YouTube channel credited Mr Akhtar as the author of Song 8; and

whilst Mr Rahi refers to an entry in the PRS register crediting him as the author of Song 8, for the reasons set out in paragraph 157 (f) above I have found the PRS register to be an unreliable record of the authors of songs and note that the Claimants have produced a record at the PRS register, crediting Shukshinder Shadu as the author of Song 8, although no one in these proceedings contends that he is.

the Claimants have produced a master CD for an album by Saira Naseem and a CD sleeve for an album released by Silver Streak records in 2000 sung by Saira Naseem in which Mr Akhtar is credited as the author of Song 9;

the Claimants have also produced an original compact disc sleeve of the album “Breathless” by Ms Pooja released by the Third Claimant in 2011, which credits Mr Akhtar as the author of Song 9

Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve for an album on which Mr Rahi sings the songs, identified as Volume 97, which shows that it was released by Super Music in 2002, which includes Song 9 and credits Mr Rahi as author of all the songs on the album;

Mr Rahi says that Ms Pooja’s album was released 9 years after Mr Rahi’s Volume 97 and Song 9 on Ms Pooja’s album is clearly a cover version of his song on Volume 97. That does not however explain how Saira Naseem came to record Song 9, 2 years before Mr Rahi recorded it in 2002 and Mr Rahi has provided no explanation;

the Claimants have not produced a digital image or original cassette from which they have suggested that the digital artwork for the Super Music Volume 97 has been copied. Nevertheless, given my other findings, that Mr Rahi has himself or by instructing others, caused to be produced fake digital images of albums erroneously crediting him as the author of songs in dispute in these proceedings and my more general finding that Mr Rahi has given dishonest evidence in these proceedings, I am unable to attribute any weight to the digital image of the Super Music cassette Volume 97 purporting to credit Mr Rahi as the author of Song 9. I note that, as in all other cases, Mr Rahi has not produced the original cassette or cassette sleeve. I attributed more weight to the CD’s and CD sleeves produced by the Claimants in both digital and original form;

the Claimants have also produced, to support their case that Mr Akhtar is the author of Song 9 and that he assigned the rights to Song 9 to the Third Claimant: (i) the assignment of 1 June 2006 to which I refer in paragraph 181 (h); (ii) confirmation from the Third Claimant’s accountant that Sage accounting records held by them show two payments were made to Mr Akhtar by the Third Claimant, in 2006, namely £1,000 on 14 April 2006 and £500 on 23 June 2006, the implication being that these payments were consideration for Mr Akhtar entering into the assignment; and (iii) an affidavit sworn by Mr Akhtar on 27 August 2000 confirming that 14 songs, including Song 9, had been written by him. These documents appear genuine on their face, their authenticity, other than the assignment of 1 June 2006 has not been challenged (and in the case of the 1 June 2006 assignment, unsuccessfully) and I accept both that they are genuine documents and that they support the First Claimant’s case that Mr Akhtar is the author of Song 9;

as noted when I dealt with Song 8, I attribute little weight to the witness statement of Mr Akhtar for the reasons explained by me in paragraph 114 above; and

I attribute no weight to the entry in the PRS register, crediting Mr Rahi as the author of Song 9, for the reasons explained by me in paragraph 157 (f) above.

Mr Sandhu said that he was sent a video of Mr Rahi criticising Mr Bindrakhia (then deceased) for singing what Mr Rahi referred to on the video as Mr Rahi’s song. Mr Sandhu said that he contacted Mr Rahi over Facebook and said to him that Mr Bindrakhia had sung Pekey Hundey, written by Mr Sandhu and that Mr Rahi had copied Pekey Hundey to create Maa Mari. Whilst I have expressed concerns about there being no documents to support Mr Sandhu’s evidence on these points, I have accepted (see paragraph 101) that Mr Sandhu was telling the truth about writing Pekey Hundey the year before it was released in India (that is writing it in 2000);

Album 1 was released in Pakistan (on my findings by TP Gold) in 2002 containing the Song Maa Mari the year after Pekey Hundey was released in India. Whilst the author of Maa Mari could have plagiarised Pekey Hundey, released the previous year in India, it is difficult to see how Mr Sandhu, who I have accepted is the author of Pekey Hundey, could have plagiarised Maa Mari which was not released in Pakistan until the year after Pekey Hundey was released in India and no mechanism by which Mr Sandhu might have plagiarised Maa Mari has been suggested by Mr Rahi, nor does he suggest that Mr Sandhu plagiarised Maa Mari, rather he says that the songs have nothing in common with each other, other than the use of the words Maa or Maawan;

Language Reach have compared song 904 from the Book (Maa Mari) with the lyrics of Pekey Hundey and have highlighted in the text of Song 904: (i) in yellow where exactly the same words are used; (ii) in red when there is a slight adaptation of words merely representing pronunciation differences between Pakistani and Indian Punjabi; and (iii) in blue, where there has been some slight adaptation of the words. An example of (iii) is given that, in Pekey Hundey the song talks of a daughter remembering being given milk with sugar cubes by her mother and Song 904 referring to a daughter remembering being given warm milk by her mother;

Song 904 is only 14 lines long, of which: (i) 5 lines are highlighted in yellow and red (mostly yellow); (ii) half a line is highlighted partly in yellow and partly in blue; and (iii) two and a half lines are highlighted in blue (total lines highlighted 8 out of 14). The two songs clearly have more in common than merely the words Maa and Maawen, which is what Mr Rahi suggests. It is highly unlikely that such a close similarity between the two songs would have occurred by chance in songs written entirely independently, and released less than a year apart. Bearing in mind that the song Pekey Hundey was released in India a year before Maa Mari was released in Pakistan and would therefore have been readily available to be copied, I am satisfied that Pekey Hundey written by Mr Sandhu has been predominantly copied from and added to by Mr Rahi or someone else to create Maa Mari; and

Mr Ahmed says, in his witness statement, that Mr Akhtar and Mr Farooq Rao, in the latter case, the owner of AF Studios, told him that, in 2002, Mr Akhtar adapted Pekey Hundey into Pakistani Punjabi, because it had been such a big hit in India and that Mr Rahi recorded the adapted song (Maa Mari) at AF studios. Whilst I attribute little value to the hearsay evidence of Mr Ahmed, I have found him to be an honest witness and I find that his evidence adds some weight to the First Claimant’s case that Maa Mari was plagiarised from Pekey Hundey (which I accept in any event for the reasons set out at (a) – (d) above).

the Claimants have produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve for an album of songs by Mr Rahi shown as released by TP Gold as Album 17. The album includes Song 11. Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve for an album, on which he is the singer, shown as released by AR Music as Album 17. The AR Music Album 17 has the same songs on it as the TP Gold Album 17. The artwork for the two albums is largely identical save for the name of the company shown as releasing the album and that, on the TP Gold version, Mr Gujrati is credited as the author of Song 11, whereas on the AR Music version, Mr Rahi is shown as the author of all the songs on the album, including Song 11. Mr Rahi says that the TP Gold Album is a pirate copy of the AR Music Album;

Mr McArthur did not compare the digital image of the TP Gold Album 17 with the digital image of the AR Music Album 17. Mr McArthur did however compare the digital image of the album sleeve produced by the First Claimant of Album 1 released by TP Gold with the digital image of the album sleeve produced by Mr Rahi for Album 1 shown as released by AR Music (see paragraph 124 (c) above). In the case of Album 1 Mr McArthur concluded that the AR Music digital image produced by Mr Rahi was created by copying and digitally altering the digital image of the TP Gold Cassette cover for Album 1, in order to produce a copy of Album 1 showing it as released by AR Music and Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album. I have accepted Mr McArthur’s opinion;

Mr Rahi’s solicitors asserted that, to the best of Mr Rahi’s belief he did not authorise TP Gold to release any of his albums. In light of Mr McArthur’s findings about Album 1, I have found that Mr Rahi did authorise TP Gold to release at least some of his albums;

I reject Mr Rahi’s assertion that the TP Gold Album 17 is a pirate copy of the AR Music Album 17 for the reasons set out in paragraph 157 (e) above;

having accepted Mr McArthur’s expert opinion, I have concluded that Mr Rahi or someone on his behalf created (and Mr Rahi produced in these proceedings) at least 6 digital images of cassette sleeves, altered to falsely credit Mr Rahi as the author of the songs on those albums. More particularly I have accepted Mr McArthur’s opinion that Mr Rahi, has produced to the court a digital image of an album purportedly released by AR Music, by copying across the digital image of the TP Gold Album and altering the name of the company shown as releasing the album to AR Music and the names of those credited as authors of the songs on the album to show them all as written by Mr Rahi. In light of those findings and because, just as with Album 1, the two versions of Album 17 have identical artwork and having ruled out the TP Gold Album 17 being a pirate copy of the AR Music Album 17, I find, on the balance of probabilities that the digital image of Album 17 purportedly released by AR Music, produced by Mr Rahi was fabricated by Mr Rahi or someone acting on his directions by digitally altering a digital image of the TP Gold Album 17, to support Mr Rahi’s contention that he wrote Song 11;

the Claimants have produced videos of private events taking place before Mr Rahi claims to have written Song 11 in 2012, at which Song 11 (or substantially Song 11) is sung;

the Claimants have produced a page from Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel crediting Mr Gujrati as the author of Song 11

I attribute no weight to the witness statement produced by Mr Rahi, purportedly signed by Mr Gujrati, for the reasons set out in paragraph 115 above. Against that I find that: (i) the TP Gold Album 17 and Mr Rahi’s You Tube channel credited Mr Gujrati as the author of Song 11; and (ii) the vidio of Mr Gujrati claiming credit for writing Song 11, to which I refer in paragraph 115 above are compelling evidence that Mr Gujrati wrote Song 11;

on the balance of probabilities I find that Song 11 is a traditional song with an unknown author, but that Mr Gujrati carried out some adaptations to the traditional song for Mr Rahi to sing. Such a conclusion is consistent with: (i) the videos produced by the Claimants of Song 11 (or substantially Song 11) being sung before Mr Rahi claims to have written it and before it was released by TP Gold as part of Album 17 in 2012; and (ii) Mr Gujrati claiming to have written Song 11 for Mr Rahi and being credited as the author of Song 11 on TP Gold Album 17 and Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel; and

I attribute no weight to the Studio Letter which includes in the list of songs said to have been recorded by Mr Rahi at that studio, Song 11 for the reasons set out in paragraph 116 above.

in his defence, Mr Rahi seemed to accept that Song 12 was sung by Nusrat at the WOMAD festival, but in his witness statement, Mr Rahi refers to there being no evidence that Nusrat sang Song 12, at the WOMAD festival. I am satisfied that Nusrat sang Song 12 at the 1985 WOMAD festival because the Second Claimant has produced documents evidencing that it arranged for Nusrat to travel from Pakistan to the UK to take part in the festival;

I am satisfied that, in a video produced by the Second Claimant of Nusrat singing Song 12, in Birmingham, in 1985, Nusrat sings “La ke Pashay Nal”” at the end of Song 12. I am satisfied that Nusrat does so, to credit Mr Pasha as the author of Song 12 and not as Mr Rahi suggests, to indicate a high-ranking Persian officer (for the reasons set out in paragraph 132) above;

I am satisfied that, in 1988 Real World Records, in conjunction with the Second Claimant, released a vinyl record of songs sung by Nusrat, including Song 12, and the vinyl record label attributes the lyrics to Song 12 to Mr Pasha and Iqbal Qasoori. I am satisfied of this because the Second Claimant has produced the original vinyl record and label, which on their face seems to be genuine;

I have found that Mr Rahi made up a story about performing a poem containing the words of Song 12 in front of Nusrat in 1983 and giving Nusrat permission to use the poem. I have found that Mr Rahi made up the story in an attempt to explain how Nusrat could have sung a song which Mr Rahi says he wrote, 17 years before Mr Rahi recorded that song himself, in 2002 (see paragraph 131 above);

I am satisfied that in 1988 the Second Claimant released two albums by Nusrat, Volume 1 and Volume 45, both of which contained Song 12 and both of which credit Mr Pasha and Iqbal Qasoori as the authors of Song 12. I am satisfied of this because the Second Claimant has produced the original cassette sleeves for both albums, which appear to be genuine;

Mr Rahi has produced a digital image, (but not the original) of a cassette sleeve from an album of songs sung by Mr Rahi shown as released by Super Music Volume 105, which credits Mr Rahi as author of Song 12. The artwork for the digital image of the Super Music cassette cover is the same as the artwork for a Fresh Music cassette cover produced by the Second Claimant, also described as Volume 105 (although Fresh Music Volume 105 has different songs on it and does not include Song 12). Mr McArthur compared the digital image of the Super Music, Volume 105 cassette cover with the digital image of the Fresh Music cassette cover Volume 105 and expressed the opinion (see paragraphs 124 -128 above) that the digital image of the Super Music Volume 105 had been copied from a digital image of the Fresh Music Volume 105 and the name of the company releasing the album, details of songs and credits for the authors of those songs were changed to produce the digital image of the Super Music Volume 105 cassette sleeve. I have accepted Mr McArthur’s opinion and find that Mr Rahi or someone acting on his directions altered a digital image of the Fresh Music cassette sleeve to produce the digital image of the Super Music cassette sleeve for the purposes of supporting Mr Rahi’s case, that he wrote Song 12; and

the Second Claimant has produced copies of assignments to it of the rights in Song 12 by: (i) Mr Pasha as writer dated 17 July 1990; and (ii) Nusrat as singer dated 17 August 1989. On the face of it these assignments appear genuine.

Song 1050 in the Book and the song sung by Shaukat Ali in 1979 (Song 1) are not substantially different and that Mr Rahi did not write the song sung by Shaukat Ali which is a traditional song with an unknown author (he may have written some or all of the words that are different in Song 1050) (see paragraph 157 above);

Song 5, as sung by Inayat Ali in 1980 and Song 234 in the Book share the same hook/chorus line which forms a substantial part of both songs and was written by Inayat Ali (see paragraph 166) and Mr Kakhi wrote the parts of Song 234 that do not consist of the chorus/hotline (see paragraph 167);

Song 7 and Song 828 share the same chorus and Shaukat Ali wrote the chorus (see paragraphs 179 – 180 above); and

whilst there are some differences between Pekey Hundey (Song 10) and Maa Mari, Pekey Hundey has been heavily plagiarised in order to create Maa Mari (see paragraph 187). Mr Rahi may have plagiarised Pekey Hundey in order to produce Maa Mari appearing as Song 904 in the Book, if Mr Rahi did not do so, someone else did (likely Mr Akhtar).

I have found that Mr Rahi did not write any part of Song 12. I am satisfied that Mr Rahi must have known, when he issued strikes to YouTube in relation to 12 videos on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel containing Song 12 that he did not write Song 12 which appeared in those videos, there is no scope for Mr Rahi being mistaken about that, based upon my findings. Those strikes would be malicious regardless of whether Mr Rahi intended to benefit himself or to cause loss to the Second Claimant, because the representations to YouTube were untrue, Mr Rahi knew them to be untrue and the representations were inherently injurious for the reasons I have set out in paragraph 197 above;

given that Mr Rahi was only issuing strikes against 12 videos on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, there was no reason why Mr Rahi would have needed to issue his complaints to YouTube about those 12 videos infringing Mr Rahi’s copyright, in three separate strikes, Mr Rahi accepted that YouTube allowed up to 10 links to be challenged in any strike. I do not accept Mr Rahi’s explanation that he found the videos on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel on three separate occasions and therefore issued strikes each time he found them, because the Second Claimant has produced the notification that it received of Mr Rahi’s strikes which show that ten strikes were made in two separate strikes of five each on 9 July 2020 (which could have been done in one strike) and the balance of two strikes were made on 22 July 2020. I find that Mr Rahi issued three separate strikes because he wished to cause YouTube to close down the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, bearing in mind that Mr Rahi accepted in cross-examination, that he knew about YouTubes’ three strike policy and having regard to the threats that Mr Rahi issued to the Second Claimant which I will describe next; and

in the same Facebook post as I refer to in paragraph 200 on 19 September 2020 above Mr Rahi said “and the Hi-Tech (another publisher) will get to know, the Oriental Star (Second Claimant) will get to know, so far it is only the claim of poetry has been done, sir, the real claim will now become a thing, 94 albums, 739 songs, without any permission they have been selling for 20 years and eating…..”. The complaints made by Mr Rahi to YouTube about the Second Claimant infringing his rights in Song 12 were made to YouTube in July 2020, 2 months before the video was posted on Mr Rahi’s Facebook page, on 19 September 2020. I am satisfied that this was a threat by Mr Rahi that he would continue action against the Second Claimant‘s YouTube channel with the aim of achieving the same result (the closing down of the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel) as he had achieved in relation to the First Claimant’s YouTube channel.

I have found that Song 1 is not substantially different to the version sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976. It is possible that somebody other than Mr Rahi adapted the traditional version of the song sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976 to create Song 1050 which appears in the Book, and that Mr Rahi did not know that it had been adapted from a traditional song, alternatively Mr Rahi adapted it, but either way, there is no scope for Mr Rahi to honestly believe that he wrote Song 1050 as he asserted to YouTube or Song 1 as sung by Shaukat Ali which Mr Rahi issued the strikes against;

I have found (paragraph 167) that Mr Khaki took the hook line/chorus from the song written by Inayat Ali in around 1980 and created Song 234 in the Book. In light of those findings there is no scope for Mr Rahi to have honestly believed that he wrote (and therefore have the rights as author to) song 234 in the Book or Song 5 sung by Inayat Ali in 1980, the later featuring on the videos on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, that Mr Rahi issued strikes against;

I have found that Mr Rahi lied about creating the chorus line which is shared by the song which I have found was sung and written by Shaukat Ali in 1985 (Song 7) and Song 828 in the Book. Mr Rahi may have written some or all of the words to song 828 in the Book, other than the chorus line, but he must have done so long after 1985 and there is no basis on which Mr Rahi can honestly have believed that he had any rights to Song 7, as sung by Shaukat Ali which features in the videos appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, which Mr Rahi issued strikes against; and

finally, I have found (paragraph 187) that Pekey Hundey was plagiarised by someone to write the song Maa Mari which appears as Song 904 in the Book. While someone other than Mr Rahi could have plagiarised Pekey Hundey, to create Maa Mari. Mr Rahi’s claim that he wrote Song 904 in the Book is fraudulent, whether he plagiarised Pekey Hundey or someone else did, to create Maa Mari. It follows from that that there was no basis for Mr Rahi to honestly believe that he had rights, in the song Pekey Hundey which features in the videos on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, which Mr Rahi issued strikes against.

YouTube has a potential liability to third parties, as host of YouTube channels operated by its users, if the content of those YouTube channels infringes the copyright of third parties;

in order to reduce the prospects of YouTube being held liable for the content of YouTube channels infringing the copyright of third parties, YouTube has developed policies which enable third parties to notify YouTube, if they assert that the contents of YouTube channels infringes their copyright and which enable YouTube to rapidly decide whether action should be taken to prevent the copyright infringement of which the third party complains from continuing (YouTube’s users agree, as part of the terms on which they are allowed to have a YouTube channel, that YouTube is entitled to take that action);

in light of the very large number of YouTube channels, YouTube could not spend any significant period of time considering whether or not there has been an actual infringement of a third party’s copyright. The three strikes policy (giving YouTube the right, as against its channel users, to remove content, prevent the uploading of new content and ultimately disable YouTube channels if YouTube receives three strikes within a 90 day period) is a means by which YouTube seeks to achieve a rapid consideration of whether a third party’s copyright is being infringed by one of its channel users and to take action if, on a cursory examination of the third party’s claim and any response from the YouTube channel user, it appears that an infringement has or may have taken place;

by issuing strikes against both the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, fraudulently claiming to be the author of songs appearing on those channels and supporting those claims by reference to the Certificate issued in respect of the Book and the initially successful proceedings before the IPT, Mr Rahi was presenting a claim to YouTube which on its face was bona fide and likely to be accepted by YouTube on a cursory examination of those claim and of the First and Second Claimants’ responses to those claims;

whilst it was open to YouTube to choose whether or not to take action against the First Claimant and Second Claimants’ YouTube channels, following receipt of the strikes issued by Mr Rahi, this has to been seen in the context of YouTube wishing to demonstrate that it was using its process for dealing with third party copyright claims fairly, firmly and consistently under its policies so that it could be seen to be using its reasonable endeavours to avoid breaches of copyright on its YouTube channels. By providing false information in support of those claim, that the First and Second Claimants’ YouTube channels were infringing his copyright, Mr Rahi was misleading YouTube into believing on a cursory examination of his claim that he had written the songs which were the subject matter of his strikes and therefore held the copyright in them. But for Mr Rahi providing that false information to YouTube it would not have the taken action against the First Claimant’s or the Second Claimant’s YouTube channels and that, in my judgment amounts to interference with the contractual relationship between YouTube and the First and Second Claimants.

the videos on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels which included Songs 1 – 11 which Mr Rahi claimed he wrote were deleted from the First Claimant’s YouTube channels over a period of time, after Mr Rahi submitted his three strikes;

YouTube refused to allow the First Claimant to upload new content onto its YouTube channels; and

on 9 September 2020 YouTube disabled the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel.

summarise the basis on which the First and Third Claimants claim that Mr Rahi acted as part of an unlawful means conspiracy/in common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi;

confirm what the consequences of judgement being entered against Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi are for the claim against Mr Rahi;

make some preliminary points about: (i) Mr Rahi’s defence to Claim 115; (ii) the nature of the First and Third Claimants’ case against Mr Rahi; and (iii) the findings I have already made which are relevant to the determination of Issue 8;

refer to the chronology of events, relevant to Issue 8, which appears at Annexe 2 to this judgement;

decide whether Mr Rahi was aware of the relevant action being taken by Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi; and

decide whether Mr Rahi encouraged Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the action that they took, by considering the factors that the First and Third Claimants rely on in asserting that Mr Rahi did encourage Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take that action namely: (i) what Mr Rahi’s own actions indicate; (ii) the association between Mr Rahi and the witnesses to the Assignment; (iii) the association between Mr Rahi and Ms Manzoor; and (iii) the involvement of Mr Zahoor in acting for Mr Rahi and for Mr Qureshi. I will then say what my finding is in relation to Issue 8 and summarise my reasons for making that finding.

Ms Manzoor assigned to the Third Claimant her rights as singer in recordings she made (“the Works”);

on 1 October 2015 the Third Claimant assigned to the First Claimant those rights in the Works;

in February 2020, Mr Rahi obtained the Certificate from the IPO certifying his ownership of all the songs in the Book. Relying on the Certificate, Mr Rahi issued proceedings in the IPT, in Pakistan against the First and Second Claimant and Hi – Tech, to confirm his ownership of all the songs in the Book. Mr Zahoor acted for Mr Rahi in obtaining the Certificate from the IPO and issuing proceedings in the IPT. Mr Rahi made fraudulent and malicious claims to YouTube, in June and July 2020, based upon his having written Songs 1 - 11;

Mr Rahi also issued complaints to YouTube about Song 12 in July 2020 appearing on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, in reliance upon the Certificate in respect of the Book. YouTube issued notice that the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel would be disabled;

on 9 September 2020 YouTube disabled the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and on 19 September 2020, Mr Rahi published, on social media, a video in which he and his lawyer Mr Zahoor boasted about damaging the First Claimant’s business and threatened to continue to inflict damage on the First Claimant and that the Second Claimant’s YouTube Channel would be next;

in Claim 72 Mr Rahi undertook, after an injunction had been granted to the First Claimant, to retract the complaints he made to YouTube;

the Second Claimant issued Claim 92 and on 19 November 2020 obtained an injunction requiring Mr Rahi to retract the complaints he made to YouTube about the Second Claimant infringing his copyright in relation to Song 12;

Mr Rahi knows Ms Manzoor and Ms Manzoor provided a witness statement in Claim 72 in support of Mr Rahi, outlining her grievance against the First Claimant and Ms Manzoor and Mr Rahi have been photographed together;

Ms Manzoor maliciously purported to assign, on 5 May 2020 to Mr Qureshi, her manager, the rights in the Works she had already assigned to the Third Claimant (“the Assignment”). The witnesses to the signature of Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi on the Assignment were Rana, believed to be Mr Rahi’s booking agent and Mr Jutt, believed to write songs for Mr Rahi;

using Mr Zahoor, Mr Qureshi issued a claim in the IPT that, pursuant to the Assignment he held the performer rights in the Works assigned to him by Ms Manzoor and between 21 October 2020 and 23 October 2020, Mr Qureshi complained, in three strikes to YouTube, that songs sung by Ms Manzoor published on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel infringed the rights he had obtained by the Assignment;

YouTube removed the Works from the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and gave notice to the First Claimant that its YouTube channel would be deactivated; and

in light of: (i) the connection between Ms Manzoor and Mr Rahi and Ms Manzoor providing a witness statement for Mr Rahi in Claim 72; (ii) the witnesses to the Assignment being close associates of Mr Rahi; (iii) Mr Rahi’s video in which he threatened the First Claimant; and (iv) the similarities between the proceedings issued by Mr Qureshi and Mr Rahi and the employment of the same lawyer to take proceedings for Mr Rahi and Mr Qureshi before the IPT, in Pakistan, the First and Third Claimants say that all three defendants were involved in a common design and conspiracy to injure the economic interests of the First Claimant and the Third Claimant, in that they combined to take unlawful action in order to cause damage to the First Claimant and Second Claimant.

Ms Manzoor acted maliciously and fraudulently in purporting to assign rights in the Works which she did not own, to Mr Qureshi, by the Assignment;

Mr Qureshi acted maliciously and fraudulently in issuing groundless claims to the IPT and YouTube and deliberately sent several complaints to YouTube to provoke it to disable the First Claimant’s YouTube channel in accordance with YouTube’s three strikes policy;

Mr Qureshi perpetrated a deceit on YouTube by knowingly making groundless complaints in order to induce YouTube to remove material from the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and deactivate its YouTube channel; and

Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi acted in a common design to interfere wrongly in the economic interests of the First Claimant and make malicious and false claims.

as is not uncommon in the case of claims for unlawful means conspiracy, there is no document and no oral conversation that the First and Third Claimants rely upon as providing direct evidence that Mr Rahi conspired with or acted in common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi. The First and Third Claimants invite me to infer from the circumstances that I have summarised in paragraph 214 above that Mr Rahi was involved in a conspiracy or common design with Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor;

it is not asserted by the First and Third Claimants that Mr Rahi took any substantive steps himself with the object of causing loss to the First and Third Claimants, rather it is the First and Third Claimant’s case that Mr Rahi persuaded or encouraged Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the steps summarised in paragraph 214 (I) and (J) above, so that Mr Qureshi would “front” an attack against the First Claimant’s YouTube channels;

although Mr Rahi’s defence makes the assertions I have set out in paragraph 217 above, I have determined that I cannot attribute any weight to those assertions, because I have found that Mr Rahi has given an extensive amount of dishonest evidence to the court including providing falsified documents to the court (the digital images of cassette sleeves);

I have already found, more specifically in relation to this issue, that Mr Rahi’s assertion in his defence that he has no more than a passing acquaintance with Rana is untrue, because Mr Rahi accepted, in cross-examination, that Rana has been his best friend for years (see paragraph 145 above); and

as already noted (see paragraph 111 - 112 above) although Rana and Mr Jutt made witness statements in which they said that neither of them were employed by Mr Rahi and they had only worked for him as independent contractors, neither of them attended the trial for cross-examination. I have concluded (see paragraph 112 above that notwithstanding the excuses offered by Mr Pearson for Rana and Mr Jutt not attending the trial, I am unable to attribute any weight to the evidence contained in the witness statements of Rana and Mr Jutt.

Mr Jutt is or was shown on Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel as the writer of some of his songs;

Mr Jutt is shown on a video of a concert at which Mr Rahi performed collecting “appreciation money” for Mr Rahi;

Mr Rahi, Mr Jutt, Rana and another man are shown in a photograph with their arms around each other;

Mr Jutt is shown in a photograph taken by himself as a “selfie” in the foreground, with Mr Rahi in the background singing, on stage, at a concert. The photograph shows that Mr Juttt had “back stage” access at that concert; and

Mr Jutt signed a “studio letter”, purportedly as proprietor of the Zoom Recording Studio on 1 February 2020, in which he purports to certify that Mr Rahi recorded some 17 albums at his studio. If, as the First and Third Claimants say, the information contained in the letter is untrue, this shows that Mr Jutt was willing to lie for Mr Rahi, if true it demonstrates more than just a passing acquaintance between Mr Rahi and Mr Jutt.

if the Assignment was executed on 5 May 2020, then by the time Ms Manzoor made her witness statement in Claim 72 on 24 September 2020, she had already assigned to Mr Qureshi her rights as singer in the songs appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and therefore it would be Mr Qureshi’s rights as assignee which the First Claimant was infringing. Ms Manzoor does not however mention the Assignment in her witness statement and talks about considering taking legal proceedings herself, which she could not do if she had already executed the Assignment. It is inconceivable, in my view that Ms Manzoor could have forgotten about executing the Assignment or that she did not understand its effect; and

there is no reason why Mr Qureshi would wait until 21 October 2020 to issue strikes against the First Claimants Main YouTube channel if Ms Manzoor had assigned him her rights in the 400 songs to him on 5 May 2020.

what I have said in paragraph 222 above;

the content of the video uploaded to Mr Rahi’s Facebook page on 19 September 2020, as transcribed in the bundle, including Mr Rahi saying that so far the claim had been for poetry, but the “real claim” was for 94 albums and 739 songs sold without his permission over 20 years (see paragraph 203 (c) above); and

in Mr Twaseen’s witness statement he says that he asked Mira Mc, who knew Mr Rahi to intervene on the Second Claimant’s behalf with Mr Rahi to ask Mr Rahi to retract the strikes he had submitted against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel. Mira Mc, according to Mr Twaseen, reverted to say that Mr Rahi would only retract the YouTube strikes if all solo albums sung by Mr Rahi appearing on the Second Claimant and Hi-Tech’s (a company controlled by Mr Twaseen’s brother) YouTube channels and other digital platforms were removed, so that Mr Rahi could exploit them on his own YouTube channel and digital platforms.

I have found that Mr Rahi had, by 29 September 2020, been frustrated in his attempts to close down the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel and that he knew that any further attempt by him, in his own name, to close down the First Claimant’s YouTube channel was highly likely to be met by a further successful application for an injunction by the First Claimant and would further expose Mr Rahi to damages claims from the First Claimant. I am satisfied however, given the amount of effort and the lengths that Mr Rahi had gone to fraudulently claim that he was the author of songs appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, that Mr Rahi was unlikely to give up his attempts to close down the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, if he could find a way to do so, which did not involve him issuing strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channels himself;

in paragraph 21 of his witness statement of 3 October 2022, Mr Ahmed says that he received calls from Pakistan from people who told him that Mr Rahi had openly said that he would take revenge upon the First Claimant for taking out an injunction against Mr Rahi and for supporting the Second Claimant’s case. Whilst I am cautious about accepting such a general assertion which does not name the individuals that Mr Ahmed said told him what Mr Rahi was saying in Pakistan about taking revenge upon the First Claimant, I found Mr Ahmed to be an honest witness and I accept that he did receive some reports from Pakistan about threats being made by Mr Rahi to take revenge upon the First Claimant. I find that those threats would have been made after 17 September 2020, when the First Claimant obtained a without notice injunction against Mr Rahi in Claim 72, because of the reference to the First Claimant obtaining an injunction against Mr Rahi, but also likely after 29 September 2020, when Mr Rahi agreed to retract the strikes that he had made against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, when it would be clear to Mr Rahi that he could not avoid withdrawing those strikes (and the injunction granted in Claim 72 had therefore succeeded in preventing Mr Rahi’s efforts from resulting in the continued closure of the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel). The threats that I am satisfied were made by Mr Rahi in Pakistan support my conclusion that Mr Rahi still wanted to find ways to close down the First Claimant’s YouTube channel after his own attempts to do so had been frustrated;

the two witnesses to the Assignment were: (i) Rana who Mr Rahi described, in cross-examination as having been his best friend for many years; and (ii) Mr Jutt who I have found is a close associate of Mr Rahi. I note also Rana and Mr Jutt signed studio letters confirming that Mr Rahi had recorded albums at their recording studios, in support of Mr Rahi’s case that he had not authorised certain companies to release albums on his behalf: (i) Rana signed a Studio Letter as purported proprietor of Folk Studio; and (ii) Mr Jutt signed a Studio Letter as purported proprietor of Zoom Recording Studio (see paragraph 116 above). Whilst Rana and Mr Jutt are clearly involved in the Pakistani music industry and it is possible that they just happened to be present when Ms Manzoor and her manager, Mr Qureshi wanted to sign the Assignment and have it witnessed, in view of Rana and Mr Jutt’s association with Mr Rahi I consider that the execution of the Assignment by Ms Manzoor Mr Qureshi in the presence of Rana and Mr Jutt as witnesses does suggest that Mr Rahi was involved in that process, particularly having regard to the points made by me in (d) - (f) below;

Mr Rahi described Rana and Mr Jutt in his defence to Claim 115 as “passing acquaintances” and I have found that that was a lie, aimed at disassociating Mr Rahi from the execution of the Assignment. I bear in mind that the mere fact that Mr Rahi lied to try to disassociate himself from the Assignment does not mean that he was involved in the Assignment, being executed (I have already found that he knew about it). However, in my judgement, Mr Rahi’s lie makes it more likely that Mr Rahi was both aware of and involved in the arrangements for the Assignment to be executed and witnessed, because, if it was merely a coincidence that Rana and Mr Jutt witnessed the Assignment, then, in my judgment, Mr Rahi would be more likely to seek to explain how that coincidence had occurred, rather than lie about his association with Rana and Mr Jutt. More importantly, in their witness statements, Rana and Mr Jutt would have explained how they came to be present when Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi signed the Assignment, to act as witnesses to it, rather than giving evidence which sought to minimise their association with Mr Rahi’s, but they simply say that Mr Rahi was not present when they witnessed the Assignment;

I am satisfied that the purpose of the Assignment was to avoid Ms Manzoor from being involved directly in taking action against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and thereby facing proceedings being taken against her by the First Claimant, like those Mr Rahi had faced. I am satisfied of that because: (i) it is not at all clear what commercial purpose could be served by Ms Manzoor assigning to her manager, Mr Qureshi the rights in 400 of her songs ; (ii) whilst the Assignment asserts that some value was paid by Mr Qureshi for the assignment of the rights in 400 songs it does not specify what that value is and it seems to me unlikely, given that no value is specified, that any value was paid; and (iii) in her witness statement of 24 September 2020 Ms Manzoor refers to contracts held by the First and Third Claimants being fakes, making it clear that Ms Manzoor knew that the First and Third Claimants held documents which on their face assigned her rights in songs to the First and Third Claimants. The judgments obtained against Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi determine that the documents were not fakes and therefore I find that Ms Manzoor knew that she had already assigned the rights in the 400 songs which were the subject matter of the Assignment (or at least those hosted on the First Claimants YouTube channels) to the First or Third Claimants, so there was every likelihood that The First Claimant would be successful in obtaining an injunction in England against Ms Manzoor, if she were to issue strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel as they had succeeded, in obtaining an injunction against Mr Rahi;

I have found (see paragraph 229 above) that the Assignment was not executed on 5 May 2020, but after Ms Manzoor signed her witness statement on 24 September 2020. The backdating of the Assignment would explain why Rana and Mr Jutt (best friend and close associate of Mr Rahi) would be used as witnesses for the Assignment. Any witnesses could have been used to simply witness Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi applying their signatures to the Assignment. If I am right about the backdating of the Assignment however, any witnesses to the Assignment would have to be willing to turn a blind eye to the backdating of the Assignment. Rana and Mr Jutt, as the best friend and close associate of Mr Rahi respectively, may well have been prepared to do that, to promote a scheme to which Mr Rahi was a party;

as noted, the use, by Mr Qureshi of Mr Zahoor to issue proceedings before the IPT in Pakistan to support his strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel is the same tactic, using the same lawyer, as were used by Mr Rahi in support his strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, which supports the conclusion that Mr Rahi was involved in encouraging and facilitating the action taken by Mr Qureshi against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel; and

the sequence of events is: (i) Mr Rahi undertakes to retract the strikes that he had issued against the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel on 29/9/20; (ii) on my findings, the Assignment is executed at around the same time and in any event after 24 September 2020; (iii) 21/10/20 - 23/10/20 Mr Qureshi issues 3 strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel; and (iv) 29/10/20, Mr Qureshi issues proceedings in the IPT, using Mr Zahoor to support his strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel. If I am right that the Assignment was signed after 24 September 2020, then the Assignment was signed shortly after an interim injunction had been granted against Mr Rahi requiring him to retract his strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel (17 September 2020) and at around the time that Mr Rahi undertook to retract his strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel (29 September 2020). In either event the timing of the strikes and the issuing of proceedings in the IPT by Mr Qureshi, supports the conclusion that Mr Rahi was encouraging Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to try to close down the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, when he had been frustrated in his attempts to do so himself.

although Mr Rahi denied it, I have found that Mr Rahi executed agreements assigning to Heera Enterprises and to Thar Productions, the rights he had as singer in various songs, I have also found that Mr Rahi authorised companies to release his solo albums that he denied authorising to do so (paragraph 120 – 129 and 233). I am satisfied that Mr Rahi knew that he has frequently in the past assigned his rights as singer to the producer/publisher of his solo albums and I have found that this is at least one of the reasons why he decided to fraudulently claim that he had written songs appearing on the First and Second Claimants YouTube channels (see paragraphs 233 - 234). I am satisfied that Mr Rahi would know, because of his own experience as a Pakistani singer releasing songs through various producers/publishers, that it was likely that Ms Manzoor had similarly assigned her rights as singer in the past on her solo albums to the producers/publishers of her solo albums;

in her witness statement of 24 September 2020, Ms Manzoor referred to fake agreements having been produced by the Third Claimants. As a result of judgment being entered against Ms Manzoor the Third Claimant’s assertion that she had assigned to them her rights as singer in all the songs sung by Ms Manzoor that appear on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels by various assignments mentioned in the Particulars of Claim for Claim 115 is deemed to be true and Ms Manzoor’s assertions that those assignments are fake are deemed to be untrue. Mr Rahi will have seen Ms Manzoor’s witness statement filed in support of his attempt to challenge the injunction granted against him, in Claim 72 and will therefore have known that the Third Claimants were asserting that Ms Manzoor had assigned her rights, as singer to them;

on the balance of probabilities I find that Ms Manzoor will have admitted to Mr Rahi that it was at least likely that, just like Mr Rahi had done in relation to the producers/publishers of his solo albums, or some of them, she did sign documents assigning to the Third Claimants her rights as singer in the songs appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, even if she did not admit this to Mr Rahi, based upon Mr Rahi’s own experience of assigning his rights as singer in the past, I find that he would believe it likely that the agreements were genuine; and

if, as Ms Manzoor asserted in her witness statement the agreements that the Third Claimant might produce were really fake, then Ms Manzoor had much less to fear from pursuing action herself against the First Claimant and therefore much less reason to enter into the Assignment, however I have found that she entered into the Assignment to distance herself from the strikes made against the First Claimants main YouTube channel, in an attempt to avoid any claim being made against her by the First Claimant or Third Claimant.

Song 1 is in the Book;

Song 1 was written in 1989, Mr Rahi’s poem tells the story of a folktale;

the Indian Punjabi Song “Jagga” is a completely different work; and

Real Stereo released Song 1 as part of Mr Rahi’s album, Volume 9 as a cassette, in 1991, the cassette sleeve attributes authorship of Song 1 to Mr Rahi

the lyrics are based on a traditional poem not written by Mr Rahi and known to have been performed and published before 1989;

the First Claimant produces a recording of Shaukat Ali singing Song 1 in 1979

it is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is genuine and the cassette sleeve does not correctly show Mr Rahi as the author of Song 1;

DJ Cassetttes released a version of Song 1 by Mr Rahi in 2005, the cassette sleeve does not attribute authorship to anyone; and

C1 produces a vinyl record from 1976 which includes Song 1, sung by Shaukat Ali, which states that the lyrics are traditional.

Hi – Tech (a company associated with the claimants) has credited Mr Rahi on the PRS register as the author of Song 1; and

The Album published by DJ Cassettes is a pirate copy of one of his albums.

The version of Song 1 sung by Shaukat Ali and the version in the Book have the same chorus line;

Mr Ahmed produces a letter dated 10 June 2002 on C2’s headed paper signed by Shaukat Ali assigning to C2 the rights in an album which includes Song 1 and which confirms that Shaukat Ali composed all the songs in the album;

The PRS database is open to all members of the PRS (publishers and writer members). Anyone can register a work with the PRS. The entries do not prove authorship of the songs, because the database contains many erroneous inconsistent entries for the same song. There is an entry in the PRS register in 1997 which credits Shaukat Ali as the author of Song 1, a later entry of 2013 credits Mr Rahi as author.

the song is in the Book;

the song was written in 1991 by Mr Rahi and is wholly original;

he uses the word “Sadiq” at the end of Song 2 to mean “truth”, not to credit Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 2;

Song 2 was released in 1993 by TMC Cassettes as part of Mr Rahi’s Vol 28, the cassette sleeve identifies Mr Rahi as the author of Song 2;

Song 2 appeared in the film Danda Peer;

Mr Sadiq could not recall signing a letter giving the rights in Song 2 to “Moviebox” and Mr Sadiq said that C1 had contacted him but he did not want to get involved.

Mr Sadiq is the author of Song 2 which he adapted from a traditional Saraiki song for Mr Rahi to sing in the film Danda Peer produced by Zahoor Gilani in 1994, the year before Mr Rahi recorded Song 2 in an album

At the place indicated by a red mark in the Book, Mr Rahi has substituted his own name for “Sadiq” which is in the original text of the song;

C1 does not accept the authenticity of the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi and denies that it correctly shows Mr Rahi as the author of Song 2;

Song 2, sung by Mr Rahi, was released by Heera Stereo and by C2 and the cassette sleeves for Volume 28 produced by Heera Stereo and C2 both attribute the lyrics of Song 2 to MR Sadiq. Mr Rahi appears to have doctored the cassette sleeves of Heera stereo/D2; and

it is accepted that Mr Rahi appeared in the film Danda Peer and sang Song 2 in it.

C1 has produced an agreement signed by Abdul Wali Khan purporting to assign to C1 the copyright in the film Danda Peer which includes Song 2, but Abdul Wali Khan had no right to assign to C3 the rights in Mr Rahi’s song;

The Heera Volume 28 is a pirate copy of the album released by TMC Cassettes and the cassette sleeve released by C2 is clearly a copy of the Heera cassette sleeve;

The agreement dated 4 August 1993 purporting to be between Heera and Mr Rahi which recognises the author of Song 2 as Mr Sadiq is a forgery and contains a forgery of his signature; and

Heera have provided an affidavit to the Pakistani police confirming that they are unaware of the cassette sleeve shown as published by it.

He produces an audio file of Mr Rahi singing “Sadiq” at the end of Song 2;

An agreement dated 4 August 1993 entered into between Heera and Mr Rahi states that Mr Rahi is transferring to Heera his rights as singer of Song 2 and Song 2 was written by Mr Sadiq (who is a witness to the agreement);

Mr Sadiq authorised the producer of Danda Peer to use Song 2 in that film; and

On 27 November 2011 Abdul Wali Khan granted C1 the rights to the film Danda Peer (agreement produced)

SONG 3 – ROG LA GAIYON/RIO RO ASSI JHALLE HO GAYE

Mr Rahi’s case - Defence

the song is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote the song in 1995;

The song is included in Mr Rahi’s album Vol 72 released by TMC Cassettes in 1996, the sleeve to the cassette identifies Mr Rahi as writer of the lyrics;

Naseebo Lal sang a cover version of Song 3 in the film Jeeva Gujjar in 2002. The sleeve for the sound track to the film erroneously attributes authorship to Mr Sadiq; and

Mr Sadiq has acknowledged orally to Mr Rahi that the version used in the film is a cover version of Mr Rahi’s song

The author is Mr Sadiq as shown in marketing material for the film Jeeva Gujjar;

C1 does not accept that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic;

There is a recording of Song 3 released by C2 and Heera Stereo in 1996, the cassette sleeves attribute the lyrics to Song 3 to Mr Sadiq; and

Cassette covers for the soundtrack for the film Jeeva Gujjar released by Heera and an album by Naseebo Lal released by C2 both attribute authorship of Song 3 to Mr Sadiq.

The Heera Stereo release of his album is a pirate copy; and

Sargam Studio has confirmed that Mr Rahi recorded Vol 72 at that studio and the publisher was TMC Cassettes, the album cover of which he has already produced.

The cassette sleeves for: (a) Mr Rahi’s volume 72 released by C2; (b) Naseebo Lal released by C2; and the film Jeeva Gujjar all credit Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 3;

Naseebo Lal sings “Sadiq” at the end of Song 3;

By an agreement dated 27 November 2020 (copy produced) Abdul Wali Khan granted C1 the rights to the film Jeeva Gujjar; and

An entry in the PRS register in 2006 wrongly credits Sahir Ali as author of Song 3.

Song 4 is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote the song in 1993;

The song was first released in 1994 by P & P Music as Mr Rahi’s cassette Vol 23. The cassette sleeve attributes authorship to Mr Rahi;

Naseebo Lal sang a cover of song 4 in the film Jeeva Gujjar in 2002, the sleeve for the sound track for the film erroneously attributes the lyrics to Mr Sadiq

Mr Rahi refers to his telephone conversation with Mr Sadiq; and

The cassette sleeve produced by C1 of Mr Rahi’s Vol 2 released by Tip Top Plus which attributes authorship of Song 4 to Mr Sadiq is a pirate copy of the genuine album released by P & P Music

The lyrics were written by Mr Sadiq as shown on the album cover of Mr Rahi’s Vol 2 released by Tip Top Plus in 2000 and the cover for the sound track of Jeeva Gujjar released by Heera in 2002;

It is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic; and

Mr Rahi has sung the name “Sadiq” at the end of Song 4 crediting Mr Sadiq as the author

The album cover of Mr Rahi’s Vol 2 released by Tip Top Plus is a pirate copy of the album released by P & P Music a copy of which he provided with his defence

An audio of Mr Rahi singing Song 4 includes him singing “Sadiq” at the end of the song;

The book “A Chronology of Pakistani Punjabi film songs 1947 – 2006” published in 2007 credits Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 4;

By agreement dated 27 November 2002, Abdul Wali Khan assigns to C1 the rights in the film Jeeva Gujjar;

Naseebo Lal who sings song 4 in the film Jeeva Gujjar and sings “Sadiq” at the end of the song;

By letter dated 17 April 2001 (copy produced) Mr Sadiq assigns to Silver Streak Records Ltd the rights to Song 4 which he confirms in the assignment that he wrote and which is sung by Naseebo Lal;

An audio of a 1980 folk version of Song 4 shows it being performed before it was adapted by Mr Sadiq and 13 years before Mr Rahi claims to have written the song;

a settlement of a High Court action dated 18 November 1981, between C2 and Rolex Trading Company Ltd, in which C2 alleged infringement of copyright in relation to certain songs (including Song 4) and Rolex undertook not to import the songs into the UK was agreed 12 years before Mr Rahi claims to have written Song 4 (copy settlement produced); and

An entry in the PRS register in 2009 wrongly credits the singer, Nazeebo Lal as the author of Song 4.

It is in the Book

Mr Rahi wrote it in 1989 while still at school

It was released by Mr Rahi through P & P Music as Mr Rahi’s Vol 23 in 1994, Mr Rahi produces a digital image of the cassette sleeve;

C1 relies on a screen shot from I Tunes referring to the author as Inayat Ali, but the I Tunes record is not contemporaneous with the writing of Song 5 as I Tunes only started in 2001, the record is therefore unreliable;

Only the first line of the song sung by Inayat Ali and the title is the same as Mr Rahi’s song; and

Mr Rahi requires C1 to prove that the song apparently sung by Inayat Ali was released in 1980 as C1 alleges;

The song was written by Inayat Ali:

C1 does not accept that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is genuine;

C1 produces a cassette sleeve of Mr RahI’s album Vol 2 released by Tip Top Plus in 2000 including Song 5 which credits Allah Ditta Khaki as author;

C1 relies on information on I Tunes showing Song 5 was first released by Inayat Ali on 1 October 1980;

C1 produces a cassette cover for an Inayat Ali Album released by EMI in 1980 which attributes the lyrics to Inayat Ali;

Mr Rahi has copied the whole or substantially the whole of Inayat Ali’s version into the Book, C1 believes that the additional material included in the Book (beyond what Inayat Ali wrote) was written by “Khaki”;

Mr Rahi’s song is completely different to the song which C1 says Inayat Ali wrote

Inayat Ali’s version and the version in the Book contains the same chorus line;

In an audio file Mr Rahi sings the pen name “Khaki” at the end of Song 5 but in the Book he replaces the name “Khaki” with his own name;

Mr Rahi claims the chorus line was authored by him but it appears in the Inayat Ali version from 1980;

Produces an assignment from Inayat Ali to C3 of the rights in the songs in the schedule to that assignment, including Song 5; and

An entry in the PRS register in 1997 credits Inayat Ali as the author of Song 5.

It is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote it in 1992;

The song was released by TMC Cassettes as part of Mr Rahi’s Vol 31, the cassette sleeve for that album identifies Mr Rahi as the author;

C1 relies on the sound track to the film Dam Mast Qalander released in 1996. The version included in the sound track has the same title as the song Mr Rahi wrote but the first part of that song was not written by Mr Rahi , the second part includes as the first 5 lines, words that Mr Rahi wrote;

The sleeve to the sound track of the film falsely attributes authorship of the song to Mr Sadiq, Mr Sadiq may have written the rest of the song but 5 lines were written by Mr Rahi; and

C1 wrongly refers on an undated statement purportedly from Mr Sadiq saying that he wrote the lyrics for various songs including Song 6, Mr Rahi refers to his telephone call with Mr Sadiq.

Song 6 was written by Mr Sadiq;

It is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic;

C1 produces: (a) Mr Rahi’s Album Vol 31 released by C2 in 1994 the sleeve attributes authorship of Song 6 to Mr Sadiq; and (b) a Heera Stereo Cassette released in 1998 for the sound track to the film Dam Mast Qalender which credits Mr Sadiq as author of Song 6.

The album covers produced by C1 for releases of his album by Heera and C2 are pirate copies; and

C1 has not produced an agreement with Mr Rahi for the assignment of the rights in Song 6

In an audio file Mr Rahi introduces Song 6 and confirms that Mr Sadiq is the author of it;

Abdul Wali Khan assigned to C1 the rights in the film Dam Mast Qalandar after taking a permission from Mr Sadiq to use Song 6 in the film (copy assignment produced);

In an audio file Naseebo Lal sings “Sadiq” at the end of Song 6;

On 17 April 2001 Mr Sadiq assigned to Silver Streak Records Ltd the rights in Song 6 (copy assignment produced);

The cassette cover for Naseebo Lal’s album Aa Sajna which includes Song 6 shows it was released by Silver Streak Records Ltd;

A letter dated 20 July 1994, appearing on Mr Sadiq’s headed paper, sending the master for Mr Rahi’s Vol 31 records Mr Sadiq as the poet of the songs on the album (including Song 6);

An entry in the PRS register wrongly credits the singer, Naseebo Lal as the author of Song 6.

It is in the Book;

Mr Rahi started writing the song when he was still at school but did not complete the song until 1989

The song is included in Mr Rahi’s album Vol 49 released by TMC Cassettes in 2000, the cassette sleeve identifies Mr Rahi as the author;

C1 says Shaukat Ali is the author and it produces i-Tunes information which purports to show Shaukat Ali releasing Song 7 in 1981 but that information is unreliable because i-Tunes has only been around since 2000;

The track by Shaukat Ali is a medley of songs including part of Mr Rahi’s lyrics to song 7; and

The Shaukat Ali track sounds more recent than 1981.

Shaukat Ali performed the song in the 1980’s before Mr Rahi claims to have written it;

It is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic;

C1 produces a cassette sleeve from Mr Rahi’s Vol 49 released by Heera in 2000, which does not attribute authorship of song 7 to Mr Rahi, it appears that Mr Rahi has doctored the Heera cassette sleeve in order to produce the cassette sleeve on which he relies;

Shaukat Ali recorded Song 7 in 1981 which Mr Rahi claims to have written in 1989.

C1 has published the Shaukat Ali’s version on YouTube and Mr Rahi’s complaints about it doing so are groundless;

The I Tunes details of Shaukat Ali’s album correctly show it as released on 1 January 1981; and

C1 produces a cassette sleeve from Shaukat Ali’s album released by EMI in 1985 containing Song 7 attributing the lyrics to Shaukat Ali.

Hi Tech have correctly recorded at the PRS that Mr Rahi is the author of Song 7

Highlights the parts of Song 7 in the Book which are the same as Shaukat Ali’s 1985 version;

On 10 June 2002 Shaukat Ali assigned to C2 the rights in songs, including Song 7 and the assignment confirms that Shaukat Ali is the author of Song 7; and

An entry in the PRS register in 1993 credits Shaukht Ali as the author of Song 7.

It is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote it in 1998

The song was released by Times Stereo as part of Mr Rahi’s album Vol 75 which attributes the lyrics to Mr Rahi, Mr Rahi produces the cassette sleeve;

C1 relies on a CD sleeve released by Kamlee Records Ltd crediting Akhtar Hussain Akhtar as the author, shown as released in 2004, some 6 years after Mr Rahi released the song. The version sung by Tariq Khan on the 2004 release by Kamlee Records copies his lyrics and his music;

The writer is Akhtar Hussain Akhtar;

It is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic;

A screen shot of Mr Rahi’s own You Tube channel attributes the lyrics to song 8 to Akhtar Hussain Akhtar, song 8 was uploaded to Mr Rahi’s You Tube Channel on 1/1/18. The attribution page was subsequently amended;

C1 produces an assignment from Akhtar Hussain Akhtar to C3 of the copyright in songs including Song 8;

C1 produces a compact disk sleeve released by Kamlee Records attributing the lyrics to Song 8 to Akhtar Hussain Akhtar; and

C1 produces a cassette sleeve for D1’s album Vol 75 released by DJ Cassettes which makes no attribution for the lyrics of Song 8 which C1 suggests has been doctored by Mr Rahi to produce the cassette cover that he relies on.

He has produced a Studio Letter confirming that Song 7 was recorded by him at that studio;

Hi - Tech has confirmed to the PRS that Mr Rahi is the author of Song 8

On 1 June 2006 Akhtar Hussain Akhtar assigned to C3 the rights in Song 8 (copy assignment produced);

In the Book Mr Rahi adds his name to Song 8, there is no pen name of the author in the versions released; and

An entry in the PRS register for 2003 wrongly credits Sukshinder Shinda as the author of Song 8.

It is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote it in 2000

The song was released by Super Music in 2002 as part of Mr Rahi’s album Vol 97 the sleeve of which attributes the lyrics to Mr Rahi;

C1 relies on a CD cover for the album “Breathless” by Miss Pooja which attributes the lyrics to Akhtar Hussain Akhtar but that album was only released in 2011.;

Miss Pooja’s version is a clear copy of Mr Rahi’s song.

The writer is Akhtar Hussain Akhtar;

C1 produces: (a) what it says is its master CD for the recording of Song 9 by Saira Naseem; and (b) a CD sleeve for the album “Breathless”, by Miss Pooja which attributes the lyrics to Akhtar Hussain Akhtar;

C1 produces an assignment dated 27 August 2000 by Akhtar Hussain Akhtar assigning the rights in 14 songs, including Song 9, to Shabir Ahmed (Mr Ahmed’s father) there are two assignments, one in Urdu and one in English both signed by Akhtar Hussain Akhtar.

Hi Tech has confirmed to the PRS that Mr Rahi is the author of Song 9

The CD sleeve for an album by Saira Naseem released in 2000 credits Akhtar Hussain Akhtar as the author of Song 9;

Mr Ahmed recalls going to Pakistan with his father, Shabbir Ahmed in 2000 and meeting Akhtar Hussain Akhtar in a hotel, thereafter his father and Akhtar Hussain Akhtar had a close relationship and Akhtar Hussain Akhtar executed the assignment to his father on 27 August 2000;

On 1 June 2006 Akhtar Hussain Akhtar also executed an assignment to C3 of the rights in various songs, including Song 9 (copy produced);

No pen name is included in the recorded versions of Song 9, Mr Rahi has added his name to the version of Song 9 that appears in the Book; and

Entries in the PRS register for 2008 credits Akhtar Hussain Akhtar and Miss Pooja as the author of Song 9.

It is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote it in 2000;

The song was released by AR Music in 2002 as part of Mr Rahi’s Album 1 the sleeve of which attributes the lyrics to Mr Rahi;

Mr Rahi does not name anyone else as the author when singing Song 10;

C1 relies on a cassette cover that refers to a song Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal which is a song in Indian Punjabi, Mr Rahi’s song is in Pakistani Punjabi and the two songs have nothing in common other than the word Maa or Maawan, but those are words mean “mother” and are used commonly in Punjabi songs in the Indian Sub-continent.

The author is Shamsher Sandhu and Song 10 was released under the title Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal in India;

The version Maa Mari Te Rishtey was released by Silver Streak Records Ltd in 2002 as part of the album “Maa Mother” by Mr Rahi, the sleeve to the album does not attribute authorship of Song 10;

It is denied that Mr Rahi was the author of the original Indian version Pekey Hundey Maawan Naa or the Pakistani version Maa Mari Te Rishtey;

It is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic; and

C1 produces a cassette cover for Mr Rahi’s Album 1 released by TP Gold which has the same artwork as the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi, but the TP Gold cassette sleeve does not attribute authorship of Song 10. C1 says that Mr Rahi has doctored the genuine TP Gold album sleeve to produce the fake AR Music album sleeve.

He has provided a confirmation of the recording of Song 10 from the studio at which it was recorded; and

Silver Streak Records (a company associated with the Claimants) has confirmed to the PRS that Mr Rahi is the author of Song 10

A cassette cover from an album released by T-Series in India in 2000 shows Shamsher Sandhu as the author (cover produced);

An audio file records Mr Rahi saying that TP Gold is releasing his “Maa album” but Mr Rahi produces artwork for the album from another publisher, AR Music;

Mr Ahmed produces a media article about Mr Rahi wrongly claiming authorship of Song 10 when Surjit Bindrakhia was the original singer of song 10 and Shamsher Sandhu the writer of the song released the year before Mr Rahi released his cover version;

The chorus line of the song sung by Mr Bindrakhia (written by Shamsher Sandhu) has simply been adapted from Indian to Pakistani Punjabi to create the version in the Book;

Mr Akhtar and the owner of AF Studios, Farooq Roa told him that, in 2002, Mr Akhtar adapted Pekey Hundey into Pakistani Punjabi, because it was such a big hit in India and the adapted song was then recorded by Mr Rahi in 2002 at AF Studios;

he produces, highlighted in yellow the parts of song 10 in the Book which are the same as Mr Sandhu's version and highlights in red the parts that have the same lyrics as Mr Sandhu's version with slightly different pronunciations in Pakistani Punjabi and highlighting in blue those parts that have been adapted. Mr Rahi’s version, says Mr Ahmed plagiarises Mr Sandhu’s version; and

an entry in the PRS register in 2006 credits Mr Sandhu as the author of Song 10.

It is in the Book;

Mr Rahi wrote Song 11 in 2005

The song was released by AR Music in 2012 as part of Mr Rahi’s Album 17 which attributes the lyrics to Mr Rahi;

C1 relies on recordings of the song but the recording C1 refers to has nothing to do with Mr Rahi’s song; and

Mr Rahi’s song has however been slavishly copied by a UK artist who repeats the chorus written by Mr Rahi repeatedly.

Song 11 is a traditional song which has been widely performed;

It is not accepted that the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi is authentic;

C1 produces recordings of Song 11 being performed which it says took place before Mr Rahi claims to have authored the song;

C1 produces a screen shot of what it says is Mr Rahi’s You Tube Channel which does not attribute authorship of Song 11

He has produced a confirmation of the recording of Song 11 from the studio at which it was recorded;

Mr Rahi’s You Tube Channel did credit authorship of Song 11 to Naeem Gujrati, that credit was later obscured after this was disclosed to Mr Rahi, by the Claimant’s solicitors;

Mr Ahmed produces two recordings of Song 11 being performed at private events many years before Mr Rahi recorded and released his version. Translations of the videos show the lyrics are the same as those Mr Rahi claims to have authored;

Mr Rahi’s Album 17 released by TP Gold (cassette sleeve produced) shows Naeem Gujrati credited as the author of Song 11; and

An entry in the PRS register in 2012 credits Asif Khan as the author of Song 11.