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

The trial which this judgement concerns related to 3 sets of proceedings which were consolidated by court order dated 17 May 2021:

I will refer to Claim 72, Claim 92 and Claim 115 collectively as “the Claims”.

The Claims all concern YouTube channels operated by the First Claimant and the Second Claimant.

In Claim 72, the First Claimant says that Mr Rahi made fraudulent claims to You Tube, in June and July 2020, that he wrote and therefore owns the copyright in 11 songs appearing in 26 videos appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels. The First Claimant says that those claims caused YouTube to deactivate one of the First Claimant’s main YouTube channels, to delete the disputed videos and to prevent the First Claimant from uploading new content onto its YouTube channels.

In Claim 92, the Second Claimant says that Mr Rahi made fraudulent claims to YouTube, in July 2020, that he wrote and therefore owns the copyright in one song which appeared in 12 videos on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, causing YouTube to delete the 12 disputed videos from the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel and to refuse to allow the Second Claimant to upload new content onto its YouTube channel.

In Claim 115 the First and Third Claimants say that Ms Manzoor assigned to the Third Claimant all the rights in recordings made by her which appeared on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels, but that on 5 May 2022 she purported to assign to Mr Qureshi, her manager, the digital publishing rights to 400 songs (“the Assignment”) and in October 2020 Mr Qureshi complained to YouTube that videos and sound recordings of Ms Manzoor, on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels infringed his rights under the Assignment. This resulted in You Tube removing those works from the First Claimant’s YouTube channels. The First Claimant and the Third Claimant say that Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi with the encouragement of and in concert with Mr Rahi set out to injure the economic interests of the First Claimant and Third Claimant, by unlawful means.

The First Claimant says in its Particulars of Claim that:

Mr Rahi’s defence to claim 72 is lengthy, but in summary he says:

Annexe 1 to this judgment sets out details of the 11 Songs which are the subject matter of Claim 72, a summary of the facts and evidence relied on by Mr Rahi in saying that he is the author of the 11 Songs and by the First Claimant to say that he is not. Those details are taken from the Particulars of Claim and Reply of the First Claimant, Mr Rahi’s Defence and the witness statements of Mr Rahi and Kamraan Ahmed (“Mr Ahmed”) a director of the First Claimant.

Claim 92 is concerned only with one song, namely “Yaadan Vichray Diyan” (which I will refer to as “Song 12”). Because Claim 92 only concerns Song 12, it is convenient to include what is said about Song 12 in (a) the Second Claimant’s Particulars of Claim; (b) Mr Rahi’s Defence; and (c) the Second Claimant’s Reply here, rather than including them in an annexe to this judgment. I will also set out what the Second Claimant’s witnesses and Mr Rahi say about Song 12, when summarising the content of their witness statements, rather than including that detail in an annexe to this judgment.

The Second Claimant says, in its Particulars of Claim, that:

In his Defence, Mr Rahi says:

In its Reply, the Second Claimant says:

In their Particulars of Claim the First and Third Claimants say:

In his defence to Claim 115, Mr Rahi says:

By order dated 19 July 2021 it was directed that there be a trial first of those issues necessary to determine whether any or all of the claims against Mr Rahi set out in the Claims are proved. If the Claimants do prove any or all of the Claims, then the quantum of damages that Mr Rahi is liable to pay to those Claimants who have proved their claims against him at the first hearing, will be determined at a second hearing. The hearing before me is the first hearing and my task is therefore to determine whether the Claimants have proved any of the Claims they make against Mr Rahi in the Claims and if so which. I am not concerned, at this stage, to quantify any damages the Claimants may be entitled to if and to the extent that they do prove their claims.

At trial Mr Gale represented all the Claimants in all the Claims and Mr Pearson represented Mr Rahi.

I will now provide details of the witnesses of fact which each party relies upon and will provide a summary of the relevant evidence that they gave in their witness statements.

All of the Claimants’ witnesses attended trial for cross-examination except Sukshinder Singh Bhullar (“Mr Bhullar”) who Mr Pearson elected not to cross-examine. What follows is a summary of what witness says in his witness statement.

Mr Ahmed is a director of the First Claimant and the Third Claimant. He has been involved in the Asian music business since 1997, initially helping his father, Shabbir Ahmed who founded Moviebox.

The First Claimant issued strikes to Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel in respect of 4 albums on which Mr Rahi was the singer, but the First Claimant owned the rights.

Mr Rahi issued his strikes against movies on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel containing the 11 Songs, immediately after the First Claimant refused to withdraw its claims against the 4 albums appearing on Mr Rahi’s YouTube channels.

Mr Rahi boasted about closing down the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and encouraged other artists to upload the First Claimant’s copyright material on their own YouTube channels.

It was directly due to Mr Rahi’s malicious claim and strikes that YouTube suspended the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel. The First Claimant lost money as a result of its YouTube channel being suspended.

None of the sound recordings of the 11 Songs appearing in movies on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel were sung by Mr Rahi, other than Song 2 and Song 10, in the movie Danda Peer. Mr Rahi could only issue strikes against the 11 Songs on the basis that he wrote the lyrics to them and he therefore concocted a plan to claim that he had written the lyrics even though he knew he had not.

Mr Ahmed produces images taken of Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel (which when disclosed by the First Claimant’s solicitors to Mr Rahi’s solicitors, he says were deleted from that channel or made private so they could no longer be viewed). These include:

Mr Ahmed produces audio files of:

Mr Ahmed produces agreements executed by Mr Rahi which refer to songs and confirm that Mr Sadiq and others were the authors of songs which Mr Rahi claims were authored by him (and are in the Book).

Mr Ahmed produces a video of Mr Rahi confirming he went to the open market and collected two cassettes of every one of his solo albums and kept them for safekeeping and digitalisation, but Mr Rahi is now saying that he has no original cassettes or cassette covers of any of the digital images of cassette covers he has disclosed.

Mr Ahmed exhibits confirmation from a certified analyst that a symbol appearing in a song lyric known as a “Elamat E Takhullus” is put there to highlight where the name of the author of the song appears, in the song lyrics.

Mr Ahmed then goes on to provide evidence to support the contention of the First Claimant that Mr Rahi did not write the 11 Songs. That detail is included in Annexe A to this judgment.

As for Claim 115 (conspiracy to injure by unlawful means), Mr Ahmed says that:

He was, before he retired, the managing director of the Second Claimant.

Mr Rahi never mentioned to him that he claimed ownership of Song 12 or that he disputed the Second Claimant’s ownership or use of it.

The Second Claimant arranged for Nusrat to attend the WOMAD festival in 1985 and he attended the recording of Song 12 by Nusrat shortly thereafter. Nusrat and his manager Harji Iqbal told him that Mr Pasha from Faisalabad had written Song 12. He arranged, through Mr Sadiq, in 1990, for Mr Pasha to assign to the Second Claimant the rights in Song 12.

He confirms that documents produced relating to Nusrat’s attendance at the WOMAD festival in 1985, a recording agreement signed by Nusrat and an assignment signed by Mr Pasha of Song 12 are all genuine documents.

The Second Claimant has released many of Mr Rahi’s albums and commissioned the recordings of those albums. An example is the album Sazawan Na Mukian, which was produced by Mr Sadiq for the Second Claimant, Mr Rahi provides an audio introduction to that album in which he credits the Second Claimant as releasing it. It is not true that the Second Claimant has released any of Mr Rahi’s recordings illegally.

He became a director of the Second Claimant on 7 August 2017 and as such has access to the Second Claimant’s archive of documents.

Mr Rahi’s copyright strikes against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel were made suddenly and without warning and he believes maliciously because:

Mr Twaseen confirms that the following audio files are genuine and produced by him from the records of the Second Claimant:

Mr Twaseen confirms that audio file of Mr Rahi singing Song 12, including the pen name “Pasha” at the end of it is genuine and produced from the records of the Second Claimant.

Mr Twaseen confirms that the following documents were produced by him from the records of the Second Claimant and are genuine:

Finally, Mr Twaseen confirms that the following images come from the records of the Second Claimant and are genuine:

Mr Twaseen says that the PRS database comprises information provided by: (a) publishers making formal registrations; (b) radio stations reporting usage of songs which are not accurate because the radio station rarely knows who authored the song; and (c) duplicate registrations of the same song. Mr Twaseen produces PRS registrations for Song 12 from 1993, 1997 and 2004, none of which credit Mr Rahi as the author of Song 12, in contrast to the 2021 PRS registration produced by Mr Rahi of Song 12 does appear to credit him as author

Mr Sandhu says that he is the author of the song Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal, written in Indian Punjabi, which he says he wrote in 2000 and was released in 2001, sung by Surjit Bindrakhia (“Mr Bindrakhia”). Mr Rahi has plagiarised his song to create a version of the same song in Pakistani Punjabi called Maa Mari Te Rishtey.

Mr Sandhu says that many years ago he was sent a video in which Mr Rahi was performing a live show. On the video tape, Mr Rahi said that an Indian singer named Bindrakhia (who had already died) had copied his song. Mr Sandhu says he sent a message on Facebook to Mr Rahi to say that Mr Rahi had copied his song, Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal. Mr Rahi responded that he accepted that Mr Sandhu’s song had been released first but his song was recorded earlier but its release was delayed, but Mr Rahi then went on to say, in substance, so what if I copied your song, it happens all the time.

Mr Sadiq says that he is the author of Songs 2,3,4 and 6 and many other poems and songs. He also says that:

Mr Bhullar says that he recalls producing, for Kamlee Record (a company associated with the First Claimant and Third Claimant) an album containing Song 8, over 18 years ago with the singer Tariq Khan. He recalls the writer of Song 8 being Akhtar Hussain Akhtar (“Mr Akhtar”) from Manchester.

The position with Mr Rahi’s witnesses is more complicated. Mr Rahi produced witness statements from six witnesses for trial, including himself, however only Mr Rahi and his witness, Sohail Abbas (“Mr Abbas”) attended trial for cross-examination. Mr Pearson said that: (a) it was common ground that Mr Akhtar had died after he made his statement; (b) Mr Jutt did not attend trial for cross-examination because he claimed to have been intimidated by someone on behalf of the Claimants; and (c) Rana did not attend trial because he was unable to obtain a Visa to visit the UK to attend the trial and there were diplomatic difficulties with Rana giving his evidence remotely.

He is a singer, author of lyrics and composer of music and producer of Pakistani folksongs in Punjabi and Urdu.

He took part in song and poetry competitions while still at school and became a professional poet and singer in 1989, when he started to compile the Book of songs and poetry that he wrote. When he had assistance with writing songs from other poets/songwriters he paid them for their services. It took him 29 years to compile the Book of 1174 songs and the IPO issued a certificate of registration of copyright in the Book on the 19^th of February 2020.

When audio cassettes and CDs were popular, several companies produced pirate copies of his albums. From around 2015 audio cassettes and CDs were becoming a thing of the past, music listeners started moving online to listen to music. This resulted in the commissions that Mr Rahi earned from audio cassettes and CDs ending. He contacted his publishers and obtained digital copies of all his works and saved them onto a hard drive.

Mr Rahi decided to create his own YouTube channel which he did on 9 March 2017 and he started to upload his works onto this channel. He uploaded his new songs first, but when he started to upload his older songs he says that claims were made against his YouTube channel by others who had illegally uploaded his songs onto their own YouTube channels. The only disputes he was unable to resolve were those lodged by the First Claimant, Hi-Tech and the Second Claimant and associated companies.

Mr Rahi issued a claim against the First Claimant in the IPT in Lahore, based upon his having registered the Book at the IPO. At the same time the First Claimant issued a claim against him in the IPEC in London however the IPEC claim was not progressed by the First Claimant. Mr Rahi’s proceedings before the IPT were successful.

Mr Rahi issued strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel for 26 YouTube links appearing on its YouTube channel. YouTube only allowed up to 10 links to be referred to in any one strike and so he made three separate strikes in order to cover all 26 links.

12 songs are in dispute in Claim 72 (11) and Claim 92 (1). He owns the copyright in all 12 songs which were written by him and which are included in the Book registered with the IPO.

Annexe 1 to this judgment contains a summary of what Mr Rahi says in his witness statement about the 11 songs which are the subject matter of Claim 72. I will not repeat those points here but I will summarise what Mr Rahi says in his witness statement about Song 12 (the subject of claim 92) in addition to what is contained in his defence. Mr Rahi says that: (a) the agreement purporting to be dated 17 July 1990 between the Second Claimant and Mr Pasha does not refer to Song 12 and was executed 5 years after the WOMAD festival at which the Second Claimant says that Song 12 was sung by Nusrat: (b) there is no evidence that Nusrat sang Song 12 at the WOMAD festival; (c) the alleged agreement between Nusrat and the Second Claimant is dated in 1985, but the album which the Second Claimant has produced of songs sung by Nusrat (including Song 12) was not released until 1992; and (d) Hi – Tech have credited Mr Rahi on the PRS Register as the author of Song 12.

Mr Rahi says that the First Claimant has produced documents which are not genuine and that, whilst those documents do not concern the 12 Songs they have been produced to rebut his evidence that he never authorised the Claimants or their associated companies to release any of his solo albums. Mr Rahi says that these false documents have been produced to damage his credibility. The documents referred to are:

Mr Rahi says that he had nothing to do with the complaint made to YouTube by Mr Qureshi which forms the subject matter of Claim 115. The screenshot used by the First Claimant and the Third Claimant to support Claim 115 allegedly taken from Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel are in fact taken from a website based in El Salvador. Mr Jutt and Rana who witnessed the Assignment by Ms Manzoor to Mr Qureshi are independent contractors and do not work for Mr Rahi. They have both providing witness statements which confirm that they provide services to many musicians, singers and artists in the Pakistani music industry. He knows Ms Manzoor as a prominent Pakistani singer, but not Mr Qureshi.

Mr Akhtar confirms that he did not write Song 8 or Song 9.

Mr Jutt says that:

Rana says:

Mr Sharif refers to attempts he made to mediate a settlement of the dispute between the Claimants and Mr Rahi. Mr Gale objected to Mr Sharif's evidence, on the basis that it refers to without prejudice discussions. In the event Mr Pearson did not rely upon Mr Sharif's evidence.

Mr Abbas says that:

Mr Pearson also said that he wished to rely upon the following additional evidence produced by Mr Rahi:

Mr Gale objected to Mr Rahi relying on the witness statements of Waqar Akhtar and Naeem Akhtar because he said they were served by Mr Rahi’s solicitors long after the date for service of witness statements had passed.

The parties were given permission to rely upon expert evidence consisting of: (a) handwriting experts; (b) fingerprint experts; and (c) Forensic document examiners. A direction was also given for a single joint expert on Pakistani intellectual property law to be instructed. In the event there was no issue about applicable Pakistani intellectual property law.

The Claimants relied upon reports prepared by Karen Caramiello (“Ms Caramiello) and Mr Rahi relied upon reports prepared by Ellen Radley (“Ms Radley”).

Ms Caramiello and Ms Radley both examined 6 documents produced by the Claimants which Mr Rahi denied bore his signature:

Ms Caramiello’s opinion was that there was very strong evidence that Documents 1 – 5 and moderately strong evidence that Document 6 contained Mr Rahi’s signatures. Ms Radley’s opinion was that the evidence as to whether Mr Rahi had signed the 6 documents was inconclusive.

Ms Radley examined two documents which the First Claimants produced and said were signed by Mr Akhtar (which Ms Caramiello did not examine), namely: (a) an assignment dated 1 June 2006 from Mr Akhtar to the Third Claimant of the rights in songs listed in Schedule 1 to that agreement, including Song 8 and Song 9; and (b) an affidavit by Mr Akhtar dated 27 August 2000, on the Third Claimant’s headed paper, in which Mr Akhtar confirmed that he had written the 14 songs set out above, including Song 9. Ms Radley concluded that the evidence as to whether the documents contained Mr Akhtar’s signature was inconclusive.

The Claimants relied on reports prepared by David Goodwin (“Mr Goodwin”) and Mr Rahi relied upon reports prepared by Peter Swan (“Mr Swan”).

The fingerprint experts examined thumb prints purporting to be those of Mr Rahi, appearing on Document 1, Document 2 and Document 6. They also examined thumb prints which purported to be Mr Rahi’s thumb prints on: (a) an agreement between Mr Rahi and Heera Company, Karachi dated 12 December 1999, by which it was confirmed that Heera had purchased the volume, “Traveller of Pain” containing 8 songs; and (b) an agreement on paper headed “King of Folk” “Akram Rahi” dated 5 October 1999, by which Mr Rahi gave the rights in his Volume No 45 containing 8 songs, to the Second Claimant, 5 of which songs were noted as having been written by Mr Sadiq. The agreement of 12 December 1999, if genuine, contradicts a confirmation given in reply to part 18 request, by Mr Rahi’s solicitors, that to the best of Mr Rahi’s knowledge he never authorised Heera to release any of his albums and the agreement of 5 October 1999, if genuine, contradicts Mr Rahi’s evidence that he never sang any songs written by Mr Sadiq.

There was a large measure of agreement between Mr Goodwin and Mr Swan, they both agreed that the thumb prints on Document 1 and Document 6 and the Heera agreement dated 5 October 1999 were Mr Rahi’s thumb print. They both agreed that they could not be certain as to whether Mr Rahi’s thumb print was on the Heera agreement of 12 December 1999. The only disagreement was about Document 2 where Mr Goodwin said that the thumb print is that of Mr Rahi, whereas Mr Swan said he could not be sure that it was Mr Rahi’s thumb print, but could not say that it was not.

The Claimants relied upon the reports of Iain McArthur (“Mr McArthur”) and Mr Rahi relied upon the reports of Ms Radley.

Mr McArthur describes himself as an expert in forensic audio and video enhancement. Mr McArthur was provided with digital images of 34 cassette covers, 17 being produced by the Claimants and 17 by Mr Rahi, apparently of the same 17 albums, but the Claimants’ and Mr Rahi’s versions showing different companies as releasing them. Mr McArthur was asked to compare the digital images of the cassette covers produced by the Claimants with those produced by Mr Rahi, for the same album and to express an opinion as to which of the two digital cassette covers of the same album was the original. In the event Mr McArthur only reported upon 6 cassette covers produced by the Claimants and 6 produced by Mr Rahi of the same albums.

Ms Radley was, in addition to being instructed to examine signatures, also instructed by Mr Rahi to examine cassette covers, but the only cassette covers that Ms Radley was asked to examine were the two cassette covers produced by the Claimants for Mr Rahi’s Volume 28 which the Claimants said were released in Pakistan by Heera Stereo and in the UK by the Second Claimant. Ms Radley was asked, by Mr Rahi, to express her opinion as to whether one was a copy of the other and if so which. Unlike Mr McArthur, Ms Radley was not instructed to compare digital images of cassette covers produced by the Claimants with digital images of cassette covers produced by Mr Rahi for the same albums.

Mr McArthur expressed the opinion that the digital images of cassette covers produced by Mr Rahi were copies of the digital images of cassette covers produced by the Claimants. He also expressed the opinion, looking at where the images differed, that image editing software had been used to produce those differences in the digital images produced by Mr Rahi. The most material differences were the name of the company that was releasing the album and the names of those who were credited on the album sleeves as the authors of the songs. The names of the authors on the Claimant’s versions of the album covers being changed, in Mr McArthur’s opinion, on Mr Rahi’s versions to credit Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on all the albums (including: (a) inserting a credit for Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on Album 1, including Song 10; and (b) deleting the credit of Mr Sadiq as the author of Song 2 on Volume 28 and inserting a credit for Mr Rahi as the singer and author of all the songs on Volume 28.

Ms Radley concluded that the digital image of the Heera cassette for Mr Rahi’s Volume 28 had been copied and altered to create the artwork for the Second Claimants album sleeve for the release of Mr Rahi’s Volume 28 in the UK. This conclusion was accepted by the Second Claimant. Ms Radley’s opinion is of no assistance to me in determining whether the digital image produced by Mr Rahi which credits him as author of all the songs on Volume 28 (including Song 2) is a copy of the Heera cassette cover which has been altered to credit Mr Rahi as the author of Song 2 (which Mr McArthur says that, in his opinion, it is).

The evidence of the single joint expert on Pakistani Intellectual Property law was accepted by both parties and the expert not called to give evidence.

Ms Caramiello, Mr McArthur and Mr Goodwin attended trial and were cross-examined by Mr Pearson. Mr Gale elected not to cross-examine Mr Swan or Ms Radley.

There is an agreed list of 13 issues however, in closing, Mr Pearson conceded Issue 9 (can the malicious falsehood claim be maintained without pleading the exact words of each and every statement and the respects in which they were false?); and Issue 10 (is the malicious falsehood claim actionable in view of the fact that YouTube is registered in the USA?). In addition issue 12 (if successful on liability, how much should the Claimants be awarded in damages?) is agreed to be an issue to be determined at the quantum trial if the Claimants are successful in proving one or more of their claims. There are therefore 10 issues that I need to resolve namely

Before turning to consider the credibility and honesty of the factual witnesses, I will refer to the comments of Mr Justice Leggatt (as he then was) in Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse UK Limited and others [2013] EWHC 3560 (comm).

Mr Justice Leggatt’s comments concern oral evidence and the fallibility of witnesses’ memories and how their recollection can be affected by their recalling past events as part of the litigation process, particularly if they have a vested interest in the result.

The comments are pertinent in this case where many of the relevant events happened many years ago and the claims against Mr Rahi include allegations that his conduct has been malicious and fraudulent and that he has alone and in concert with others sought to inflict harm upon the Claimants.

In paragraphs 15-21 of his judgment Leggatt J said as follows:

“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.

In Painter v Hutchinson [2007] EWHC 758 (Ch) at paragraph 3, Lewison J (as he then was) identified a number of issues in that case which made the evidence of Mr Hutchison unsatisfactory and evidence which he said (in paragraph 6) could not be relied upon unless it was corroborated by indisputable contemporaneous documents, where it conflicted with the evidence of Mr Painter, in spite of there being issues about Mr Painter acting dishonestly, in the past. Lewison J said he had no hesitation in preferring Mr Painter's evidence. The matters that Lewison J said indicated that Mr Hutchinson had given unsatisfactory evidence justifying his approach to Mr Hutchinson’s evidence fell into the following general categories:

Lewison J went on to say: “Witnesses can however lie for different reasons. Lies in themselves do not necessarily mean that the entirety of the evidence of a witness should be rejected. A witness may lie in an attempt to bolster a case, but the actual case nevertheless remains good, irrespective of the lie”.

In this case there are allegations by the Claimants that Mr Rahi has produced digital images of album sleeves which the Claimants allege have been altered by or on behalf of Mr Rahi to falsely credit himself as the author of songs. There are allegations by Mr Rahi that the Claimants have produced the cassette sleeves from pirate copies of his albums which were not authorised by him and are copies of the authorised versions of his albums. Mr Rahi also says that documents purporting to bear his signature (and in some cases his thumb print) do not contain his genuine signature or his thumb print and have been produced by the Claimants in an attempt to discredit him and his evidence. In this case therefore I also have to consider whether certain documents, the authenticity of which is disputed, are genuine and are what they appear to be.

I will now say what impression I formed of witnesses when they were cross-examined and whether I accept their evidence to be credible and honest, if so why and if not why not.

Mr Ahmed’s witness evidence consists almost exclusively of producing documents that he has obtained from the records of the First Claimant and the Third Claimant and what he says he has found on-line on the YouTube channel and social media sites of Mr Rahi. He also sets out why he believes that Mr Rahi encouraged and acted in concert with Ms Manzoor and her manager, Mr Qureshi in seeking to cause economic damage to the First Claimant and the Third Claimant, by Mr Qureshi issuing strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel.

Mr Ahmed had a tendency, on occasions, when asked questions in cross-examination, to attempt to put the First and Third Claimants’ cases, rather than answer the question. For example he was asked if there was an agreement by which Mr Rahi had assigned his rights as singer of Song 10. Mr Ahmed replied that Mr Rahi could be heard in a recording of Song 10, saying that TP Gold was releasing that song for him (it being Mr Rahi’s case that the TP Gold cassette cover produced by the Claimants was a pirate copy). That was not an answer to the question of whether there was an agreement by which Mr Rahi had assigned his rights as singer in Song 10. However, I found no reason to doubt that the evidence that Mr Ahmed gave in his witness statement and at trial was anything other than his honest recollection of events or that the documents that Mr Ahmed referred to in his witness statement were anything other than what Mr Ahmed believed to be genuine documents obtained by him from the records of the First and Third Claimants and Mr Rahi’s YouTube and other social media sites.

The events to which Mr Ayyub’s witness statement and his evidence at trial relate took place from 1985 up to around 2016, but most of the events took place prior to 2000. Mr Ayyub appeared to me to be an honest witness seeking to provide the court with his honest recollection of events. Mr Ayyub understandably accepted that he could not recall some matters that he was asked about in cross-examination which took place a long time ago. For example he said that the Second Claimant had released many solo albums of Mr Rahi, but he could not recall what documents Mr Rahi had signed to assign to the Second Claimant the rights to songs he sang as singer. The credibility of Mr Ayyub’s evidence therefore depends upon how reliable I consider his memory to be of relevant matters, upon which he did give evidence. I am satisfied that Mr Ayyub's evidence that the Second Claimant always obtained Mr Rahi’s authority to release those of his solo albums that it did release is based upon Mr Ayyub’s knowledge of the Second Claimants practice, rather than recalling specific instances of the Second Claimant obtaining Mr Rahi’s. I consider Mr Ayyub’s evidence that it was the practice of the Second Claimant to obtain the authority of artists before it released their albums is honest and reliable evidence, of the Second Claimant’s practice.

Mr Pearson says that Mr Ayyub’s evidence, that Mr Pasha assigned the rights in Song 12 to the Second Claimant, depends upon the evidence of Mr Sadiq, that Mr Pasha signed the assignment, because Mr Ayyub left Mr Sadiq to arrange for that to happen in Pakistan. That is true, but Mr Ayyub also gave evidence in his witness statement that Nusrat and his manager confirmed to him in 1985 that Mr Pasha had written Song 12. Mr Ayyub was asked about this in cross-examination and maintained (in my view convincingly) that Nusrat and his manager had told him that Mr Pasha had written Song 12.

Mr Twaseen only started working for the Second Claimant in 2017 and for that reason he has no personal knowledge of relevant events. His evidence consists principally of producing documents from the records of the Second Defendant.

Mr Pearson says that, during his cross-examination, Mr Twaseen conceded that the Second Claimant released albums without authorisation from the relevant artist but then tried to backtrack on that concession. I do not accept that that is a fair characterisation of Mr Twaseen’s evidence on that point. Mr Pearson asked Mr Twaseen whether, amongst the records of the Second Claimant he had found agreements between the Second Claimant and Mr Rahi (who denied ever authorising the Second Claimant to release any of the albums that he sang on). Mr Twaseen said that there would be likely to be something but he had not looked for all the Second Claimant’s agreements with Mr Rahi, because he did not think they were relevant. Mr Twaseen said that there could possibly be one or two albums for which there was no written authorisation from Mr Rahi, but not 30 or 40 (the number of Mr Rahi’s albums he believed that the Second Claimant had released). I accept that Mr Twaseen having not searched specifically for copies of all agreements between the Second Claimant and Mr Rahi and not having been employed by the Second Claimant when any agreements would have been entered into between the Second Claimant and Mr Rahi, was simply conceding that the Second Claimant might not have always ensured that there was an agreement for every album of Mr Rahi’s but that he did not think it at all likely that the Second Claimant had released 30 or 40 albums of Mr Rahi without having Mr Rahi’s authority to do so. Mr Twaseen has only been a director of the Second Claimant since the 7th of August 2017. Prior to that Mr Ayyub was the managing director of the Second Claimant and I have accepted Mr Ayyub’s evidence that it was the practise of the Second Claimant to obtain the authority of artists before releasing their albums.

I am satisfied that Mr Twaseen gave honest evidence to the court. His evidence is only of value insofar as he gives evidence that the documents that he has produced came from the records of the Second Claimant and I am satisfied that they did.

Mr Pearson suggested that Mr Sandhu had simply signed the witness statement which was put in front of him, without properly considering whether it was true, he had produced no documents to support his case that he had written Song 10 or at least the Indian Punjabi version Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal. He suggested that Mr Sandhu had made up a story about being sent a video of Mr Rahi criticising Mr Bindrakhia for singing Mr Rahi’s song and his subsequent communications with Mr Rahi over Facebook.

Mr Sandhu was asked by Mr Pearson why he gave no details of how he had written Song 10 and has produced no documents to support his case that he had done so (including his Facebook exchanges with Mr Rahi). Mr Sandhu said he did have evidence, including the date appearing on a cassette of the release of his song (which was before Mr Rahi released his Pakistani Punjabi version Maa Mari Te Rishtey). He said that the Facebook messages had been deleted and he accepted that he had taken no action against Mr Rahi for (on his case) plagiarising his song.

The lack of documents produced by Mr Sandhu to support his case is concerning, but a cassette sleeve has been produced showing Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal was released on an album in India in October 2001 sung by Mr Bindrakhia, the lyrics to the songs on the album being credited to Mr Sandhu. This is the year before Mr Rahi released the song Maa Mari Te Rishtey. I am satisfied that Mr Sandhu is telling the truth about writing Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal in 2000 before it was released the following year.

Of all the Claimants witnesses, it was Mr Sadiq who was the witness who was able to give the most relevant evidence from his own personal knowledge of facts relevant to Issue 1 (who wrote the 11 Songs, the subject of Mr Rahi’s strikes on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels) and Issue 2 (who wrote Song 12, the subject of Mr Rahi’s strikes on the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel). Mr Sadiq’s evidence is that he is the author of Songs 2,3,4 and 6 and that he arranged for Mr Pasha to assign to the Second Claimants the rights in Song 12 which he says Mr Pasha wrote. It was also the evidence of Mr Sadiq which Mr Pearson attacked, in his closing argument as being dishonest and unreliable.

Mr Pearson referred extensively to telephone conversations between Mr Rahi and Mr Sadiq which had been recorded by Mr Rahi and transcripts of which were in the trial bundle. Mr Pearson pointed out that, in those phone calls, Mr Sadiq said that he:

In addition, Mr Pearson referred to Mr Sadiq saying in his witness statement that over the years he had written 25,000, songs but in cross-examination he said that the number was 50-60,000 songs and both sets of numbers were entirely implausible, said Mr Pearson.

For the reasons that follow, I accept some, but not all of the explanations given by Mr Sadiq, in cross-examination for what he said during his telephone conversations with Mr Rahi. Mr Sadiq accepted that he had tried to mislead Mr Rahi, during the telephone conversations as to what his intentions were, in relation to giving evidence for the Claimants and disputing Mr Rahi’s authorship of Songs 2,3,4,6 and 12 (he referred to trying to be “evasive”). I accept that there is a good deal of difference between Mr Sadiq misleading Mr Rahi, as he suggested, to “get him of his back” and Mr Sadiq misleading and/or lying to the court and I do not find that he gave deliberately false or misleading evidence. However, in light of the concerns that I have about Mr Sadiq’s evidence I will look carefully for documents or other evidence that corroborates what he says, before deciding whether or not to accept that evidence.

My impression of what Mr Sadiq and Mr Rahi said, during the telephone conversations, according to the translated transcripts, is that they were not having what might be described as straightforward conversations. I would describe the language used by Mr Rahi and Mr Sadiq, during their telephone calls, as exuberant, exaggerated, flowery, laced with veiled threats and opaque in meaning.

The following points arise from the transcripts of Mr Rahi’s telephone conversations with Mr Sadiq:

Mr Sadiq said that he has written agreements signed by Mr Rahi consenting to the assignment of rights in songs that Mr Rahi had sung, but he said they were in Pakistan. Mr Sadiq said that he had only been asked to attend as a witness, not to produce documents. I find that surprising, the Claimants have known for some time that Mr Rahi was saying that he had not agreed to their releasing any of his songs and any agreements that Mr Sadiq holds, signed by Mr Rahi which show that he did agree to the Claimants releasing his songs would be relevant to undermine the credibility of Mr Rahi and yet Mr Sadiq says that he was never asked about what documents that he had. The Claimants have produced some agreements, documents and audio recordings themselves which suggest that Mr Rahi did authorise the Claimants and others, that he denies authorising, to release his albums.

Mr Sadiq failed to make concessions that he should have made. For example, Mr Pearson put it to him several times that there were differences between the version of Song 3 sung by Naseebo Lal and the song sung by Mr Rahi. Mr Sadiq first said that he had written both versions of the song, then that it was the same rhyme and rhythm and eventually that only a couple of lines were different, only the last point answered the question.

Mr Pearson did not require Mr Bhullar to attend for cross-examination. I must take the content of his witness statement to therefore be accepted by Mr Rahi.

Mr Jutt and Rana did not attend for cross-examination, Mr Pearson says that his instructions are that Mr Jutt did not attend because he was intimidated by someone on behalf of the Claimants and Rana did not attend because he could not get a visa to come to England from Pakistan and there were “diplomatic” difficulties with him giving evidence remotely. No evidence was produced to support any of those contentions.

The fact that Mr Jutt and Rana did not attend does not mean that I cannot take the evidence in their witness statements into account but I must consider what weight I should attribute to it. In my judgment Mr Rahi has not made out any good reason why Rana and Mr Jutt did not attend trial for cross examination either in person or remotely (Mr Pearson’s assertions, on instructions do not prove that there are good reasons). In addition there are a large number of images of Rana in particular, but also Mr Jutt, in the company of Mr Rahi and being described in various ways as being associated with Mr Rahi (the strength of their association with Mr Rahi being the principal point dealt with in their witness statements) which they could have been asked about, had they attended for cross-examination. In those circumstances I do not consider that I can attribute material weight to the evidence contained in the witness statements of Mr Jutt and Rana.

Mr Akhtar died after making his witness statement and his cross-examination was rendered impossible by that event. Mr Pearson seeks to rely upon a witness statement of Waqar Akhtar in which he says that he is the son of Mr Akhtar. Waqar Akhtar says he saw his father sign the witness statement on which Mr Rahi relies. Waqar Akhtar’s witness statement was served well after the time for exchange of witness statements had passed, no attempt was made to seek permission to rely upon it (before Mr Pearson said he wished to do so in his closing argument) and no attempt appears to have been made to produce Waqar Akhtar for cross-examination. The Claimants cannot therefore ask about the circumstances in which Mr Akhtar signed the witness statement or his state of physical or mental health and memory at the time.

Mr Akhtar says in his witness statement that he did not write Song 8 or Song 9. There has however been no opportunity for the Claimants to put to Mr Akhtar in cross-examination, for example, the assignment dated 1 June 2006 purportedly signed by Mr Akhtar by which he assigned to the First Claimant, the rights in songs listed in that agreement, including Song 8 and Song 9 or an affidavit dated 27 August 2000, again purportedly signed by Mr Akhtar in which he confirms that he is the writer of 14 songs including Song 9. These were the documents examined by Ms Radley on behalf of Mr Rahi and Ms Radley said she could not determine whether they had been signed by Mr Akhtar or not). For the reasons set out in this paragraph and paragraph 113 above, I do not consider that I can attribute material weight to the witness statement of Mr Akhtar (Waqar Akhtar’s witness statement merely confirms that Mr Akhtar signed his witness statement).

Mr Pearson sought to rely upon a witness statement of Naeem Akhtar who says that he is otherwise known as Naeem Gujrati in which he says that he did not write Song 11. This witness statement was also served long after the date for exchange of witness statements had passed, no application for permission to rely on the witness statement has been made and no attempt was made to produce Mr Gujrati for cross-examination. The Claimants have produced a video of Mr Gujrati saying “He is my elder brother, I consider him like a father, Mr Akram Rahi. I have been with him for 26 years. His superhit songs which I wrote for him as a writer, and my first Potohari song…..” “Maro Jandray” (Song 11). Assuming, in Mr Rahi’s favour that Mr Gujrati did sign the witness statement that has been produced, if Mr Gujrati’s had attended for cross-examination he could have been asked about the apparent contradiction between what he said on the video and his denial in his witness statement of having written or adapted Song 11 for Mr Rahi to sing. I am also concerned that, in the video, Mr Gujrati refers to his very close relationship with Mr Rahi, (considering him like a father) and whether this might have caused him to sign a witness statement which was untrue, particularly if there was no prospect of him having to attend trial to be cross-examined on the content of that witness statement. In those circumstances I do not consider that I can attribute material weight to Mr Gujrati’s witness statement.

As for the Studio Letters that Mr Pearson wishes to rely upon, there are 18 letters from the proprietors of 9 studios. What the Studio Letters purport to show is that Mr Rahi recorded named albums each containing named songs at the relevant studio and the description of each album refers to Mr Rahi being the singer, writer and composer of the songs on the album (including, amongst the numerous albums the 12 Songs in issue in these proceedings). There are however a number of problems with the Studio Letters in terms of their evidential value:

For all of those reasons I do not consider that I can attribute any evidential weight to the Studio Letters, although I will deal separately with the evidence of Mr Abbas.

The evidence of Mr Rahi is of key importance to his case, it is he who claims to have written the 12 Songs, gives evidence as to how and why he made YouTube strikes against the First and Second Claimants’ YouTube channels and denies having anything to do with the YouTube strikes issued by Mr Qureshi (Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor not being witnesses at trial).

Regrettably, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Rahi did not give evidence to the court, in his defences to Claims 72,92 and 115, in his witness statement, or in cross-examination, that represents his honest recollection of events. I am also satisfied and that Mr Rahi has himself or (more likely) others on his behalf and under his instructions altered digital images of cassette sleeves of albums on which he sang the songs, to wrongly credit Mr Rahi as the author of the songs on those cassette sleeves, including most of the 12 Songs which are the subject matter of Issue 1 and Issue 2. I have come to the conclusion that I can attribute no evidential weight to Mr Rahi’s bare assertions, in support of his case and that, where there is other evidence to support Mr Rahi’s case (other than Mr Rahi’s bare assertions) in weighing that evidence against the evidence relied upon by the Claimants, I can attribute no weight to Mr Rahi’s assertions. Given the nature of those conclusions and their importance for my decision on the issues that I need to resolve, I will now spend some time explaining why I have come to those conclusions. In doing so I will only mention now, in saying why I find that Mr Rahi did not give honest evidence and presented falsified documents to the court, the clearest cases where I find he did so.

In answer to Part 18 requests made in Claim 72, Mr Rahi’s solicitors confirmed, on 14 October 2021 that, to the best of Mr Rahi’s knowledge, he had never authorised any of the following 7 companies to release his albums:

Mr Rahi’s case was that any of his albums that were released by those companies were pirate copies of the albums that he had authorised the release of. The Claimants produced digital images of cassette sleeves of Mr Rahi’s albums on which the authors that the Claimants say wrote 10 of the 12 Songs are credited as the authors of those songs, or no author is credited, those digital images of the cassette sleeves are:

Mr Rahi has produced digital images of cassette covers for (in many cases) the same albums as are produced by the Claimants, but they are shown as released by different companies than are shown on the Claimants’ digital images and in all cases, Mr Rahi is credited as author of all the songs on the albums.

Mr McArthur (the Claimants’ forensic audio and video enhancement expert) was sent 34 digital images to analyse (17 produced by the Claimants and 17 by Mr Rahi. In the event, Mr McArthur only produced a report upon 12 digital images (6 produced by the Claimants and 6 by Mr Rahi of the same albums). Mr McArthur expressed the opinion that the 6 digital images of cassette sleeves produced by Mr Rahi had been copied from digital images of the cassette sleeves which the Claimants had produced and had been altered to change the name of the company releasing the album and the names of the people credited as authors of the songs (in the latter case from various authors, to Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs).

The 6 albums examined by Mr McArthur were:

Mr Rahi did not instruct any expert to compare the digital images of cassette sleeves produced by Mr Rahi with the digital images of cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants. Instead Mr Rahi asked Ms Radley (a handwriting expert) to inspect the digital copies of the two cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants for Mr Rahi’s album, Volume 28 which showed Heera as the company releasing the cassette in Pakistan and the Second Claimant as releasing the cassette in the United Kingdom. Ms Radley concluded that the cassette sleeve which showed the Second Claimant releasing Volume 28 in the United Kingdom was a copy of the cassette sleeve which showed Heera as releasing Volume 28 in Pakistan. This result is unsurprising, given that I understand that, at the time, Heera and the Second Claimant were associated companies, releasing the album in different countries and in different languages, but other than that there was no reason why the artwork on the two cassette sleeves should be different. The Second Claimant readily accepted that Ms Radley was right to conclude that the digital copy of the cassette sleeve showing Heera as releasing Volume 28 in Pakistan had been copied and altered to produce the cassette sleeve for the album released by the Second Claimant in the United Kingdom. This does nothing however to assist me in deciding whether the digital images of cassette sleeves produced by Mr Rahi have been (as Mr McArthur maintains they have been) copied from digital images of cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants and altered or vice versa (or neither).

Mr Pearson suggested to Mr McArthur that it was just as likely that the digital images of cassette sleeves which the Claimants had produced were copies of the digital images of cassette sleeves produced by Mr Rahi as the other way round. Mr McArthur rejected that suggestion, he said that the digital images produced by the Claimants were much sharper than those produced by Mr Rahi, indicating that the digital images produced by the Claimants were the originals. More importantly, Mr McArthur pointed to the digital images of Mr Rahi’s Volume 28 produced by the Claimants, where the names of the various authors of songs appeared which were blank areas on the digital image produced by Mr Rahi. Mr McArthur provided close up images of those blank areas which he said were (and I could see they were, on the close-up images he produced) lighter in colour than the remainder of the background of those digital images indicating, Mr McArthur said, that text had been deleted from those areas on the digital image produced by Mr Rahi.

I accept the evidence of Mr McArthur, he had rational reasons for his conclusion and he maintained those reasons under cross-examination by Mr Pearson. Mr Rahi did not instruct an expert to compare the digital images that he produced with the digital images produced by the Claimants, but instead instructed his handwriting expert to undertake a pointless comparison of the digital images of two images of cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants. This leads me to conclude that Mr Rahi knew that any independent, suitably qualified expert instructed by him to compare the digital images of the cassette covers produced by Mr Rahi with those produced by the Claimants was likely to come to the same conclusions as Mr McArthur, so he did not instruct one. He could only know that, if he knew that the digital images of the cassette sleeves he had produced had been copied from the genuine digital images of cassette sleeves and altered to support his case.

The other factor that strongly points towards the digital images of cassette covers produced by the Claimants being genuine and those produced by Mr Rahi being fabricated, is that the Claimants produced the original cassette covers for the vast majority of those that they produced digital images of. In contrast. Mr Rahi produced no original cassette covers and his reasons for not doing so were implausible, namely:

Finally, in the case of Songs 2 - 6 and 12, the cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants, Mr Rahi says, are “Pirate Copies”. By Pirate Copies, Mr Rahi means copies of the albums that he authorised other companies to release, produced and released by companies he did not authorise to release them for sale, at or around the same time as the original authorised versions of the same albums. What Mr Rahi was unable to explain however, in spite of being asked the same question several times in cross-examination (in fact Mr Rahi avoided answering the question entirely (noted by Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson  to be an indication of unsatisfactory evidence)) was why a company which was producing and selling pirate copies of the original authorised albums would change the name of the authors of the songs from Mr Rahi to various other authors, including those that the Claimants say wrote the Songs.

In addition to Mr Rahi’s assertion, in cross-examination, that all the original cassettes and CDs he had were destroyed in a fire, which he raised for the first time in cross-examination and which I have rejected as implausible, Mr Rahi also, made up, in my judgment, other stories (in all but one case for the first time in cross-examination) in an attempt to explain away difficulties in the evidence for Mr Rahi’s case.

The first story concerns Song 12 and is referred to in Mr Rahi’s defence to Claim 92. The problem for Mr Rahi in claiming that Song 12 was written by him is that the Second Claimant has produced evidence that Nusrat performed Song 12 at the WOMAD Festival in 1985 and recorded Song 12 in the same year, but Mr Rahi did not record a version of Song 12, until 2002. How then could Mr Rahi claim to have written Song 12, if there is no record of him singing it until 2002 and Nusrat sang it 17 years earlier? In my judgement, Mr Rahi made up the story set out in his defence (see paragraph 13 above) (and repeated in his witness statement) that he wrote the words to Song 12 as a poem whilst he was still at school in 1981, recited the poem in front of Nusrat and gave Nusrat permission to use his poem in 1983 in an attempt to overcome these obvious difficulties. There is not a single document evidencing any of what Mr Rahi said, it is a bare assertion and an implausible story and I reject it.

My rejection of Mr Rahi’s story about creating the words for Song 12 whilst still at school and giving Nusrat permission to use them is supported by Mr Rahi’s attempt to explain away why Nusrat sang “Pasha” at the end of Song 12 in 1985 and why Mr Rahi sings Pasha in the version of Song 12 which he released in 2002. Mr Rahi accepted that there is a custom in Pakistani folksongs of singing the name of the author at the end of the song. In his defence to claim 92, Mr Rahi says that Nusrat and Mr Rahi do not sing “Pasha” in the final line of song 12 as a tribute to Mr Pasha who the Second Claimant says is the author of Song 12, but “Pashay” meaning a high-ranking officer, in Persian. When it came to his cross-examination, Mr Rahi appeared to forget what he had said in his defence about why he sang Mr Pasha’s name at the end of Song 12 and said instead that his uncle’s son was called Pasha and he sang “Pashay” at the end of Song 12 as a tribute to him (new evidence, given in cross-examination, contradicting what Mr Rahi said in his defence, a sign of unsatisfactory evidence identified by Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson.

The next incredible story told by Mr Rahi in cross-examination but not mentioned in his defence to claim 72 or in his witness statement, concerns Song 2, which was sung in the film 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. In cross-examination, Mr Rahi said that he had a “gentleman’s agreement” with the assistant to Sayyed Gilani (“Mr Gilani”) the producer of Danda Peer, that Danda Peer would only be shown in cinemas and not released as a video or soundtrack and that Mr Rahi would remain the owner of Song 2. When Mr Rahi was asked why this detail was not contained in his witness statement, he said that, had he been asked about it, he would have provided that detail. Again not a single document refers to the so called gentleman’s agreement and there is no evidence of Mr Rahi complaining about it, when the film Danda Peer was released on DVD (new evidence given in cross-examination an indication of unsatisfactory evidence per Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson). Mr Rahi’s story is a bare assertion and is implausible and I reject it.

Four audio clips of Mr Rahi introducing albums were played to Mr Rahi (as part of his cross-examination) in which Mr Rahi introduced albums released by companies that Mr Rahi’s solicitors said, to the best of Mr Rahi’s recollection, he had never authorised to release any of his albums including DJ Cassettes, Tip Top and Heera (see paragraph 120 above). Mr Rahi, in my judgment sought to explain away these inconsistencies by, in my judgment, making up incredible stories during the course of his cross-examination. The audio clips and the stories that Mr Rahi made up to explain them away were:

It is implausible that Mr Rahi would record 4 introductions to albums which confirm he is releasing albums through 3 companies (and in some cases had already done so) that he says he never authorised to release any of his albums and he tells a similar story of how he came to record those introductions, before finalising oral agreements to record the albums and he says that in all cases, the arrangements fell through before he recorded the albums and authorised their release. In addition the Claimants have produced cassette covers for Heera Cassettes volumes 53 and 58, both of which Mr Rahi asserts are pirate copies released without his authority. As already noted (see paragraph 124 (d)) Mr McArthur compared the digital image of the Heera Cassettes cassette sleeve for Volume 58 with the digital image of the cassette sleeve produced by Mr Rahi shown as released by TMC Cassettes and concluded that the digital image of the TMC cassette produced by Mr Rahi was a copy of the digital image of the Heera cassette sleeve produced by the Claimants which had been altered to show TMC Cassettes as releasing it and to attribute authorship of all the songs on the album to Mr Rahi. The Claimants also produced the original cassette and cassette sleeve for the Heera Cassettes Volume 58, Mr Rahi did not produce the original TMC Cassettes or cassette sleeve. I find that Mr Rahi did authorise DJ Cassettes, Tip Top and Heera Cassettes to release some of his albums.

A further audio clip of an introduction recorded by Mr Rahi was played to him, the introduction was followed immediately by Song 6. In the introduction, Mr Rahi says that Mr Sadiq wrote the song and Mr Manawar composed the music for it. After the introduction was played to him, Mr Rahi immediately suggested the introduction had been wrongly added to the start of Song 6 and was not meant to refer to Song 6, but there is no evidence to support that contention, made for the first time in cross-examination. Even if true, Mr Rahi still had to explain why he referred to Mr Sadiq as the author of a song he is to sing and Mr Manawar as the composer of the music for it, when his case is that he never sang any song written by Mr Sadiq. Mr Rahi said that he was approached by a man who asked him how much he normally got paid in commission for singing a song, Mr Rahi said 800 – 1,000 and the man told him that he would pay 1,400 but asked Mr Rahi to record an introduction so that he could send it to the company in Canada that wanted the recording, to prove that Mr Rahi had agreed to record the song. Mr Rahi said that he made the recording of the introduction but he never got the 1,400 and he never sang the song. However, apart from Mr Rahi’s story being a bare assertion and inherently implausible, in the introduction Mr Rahi talks about the song that he is introducing having already been performed with great success in Canada, so Mr Rahi cannot be right in asserting that he never sang the song that he was introducing.

Finally, Mr Rahi was played another audio recording in which, on this occasion he says “my first cassette with OSA Birmingham I am presenting to you the first cassette written by Mr Sadiq named Sazawan Na Mukhian I am presenting to you and I hope you like it”. OSA Birmingham is the Second Claimant who Mr Rahi also says he never authorised to release any of his albums and as just noted, Mr Rahi says that he never sang any songs written by Mr Sadiq. Mr Rahi said that, in 1986, Mr Sadiq came to see him with some men. Mr Sadiq said that he wrote songs and would like Mr Rahi to sing some of them. Mr Rahi replied that he normally sang songs that he had written himself. Mr Sadiq asked how much he normally got paid for singing a song and Mr Rahi said 800 - 1000. Mr Sadiq said I will pay you 4,000 and I will write the songs for the cassette. Mr Rahi said he agreed and Mr Sadiq said he needed to send some proof to a company in England that Mr Rahi would sing an album and that is why he made the introduction. About a month later Mr Sadiq came to see him again and said that OSA will pay 4,000 but you must pay me 1,000, which Mr Rahi said he refused to do and therefore he did not sing any of Mr Sadiq’s songs and did not authorise the Second Claimant to release any album.

Mr Rahi’s stories as to how he came to record the introductions to the two records that he says were never recorded bear a striking resemblance to each other. The introductions contradict Mr Rahi’s case that Mr Sadiq was not the author of Song 6 and more generally that he has never sung any songs written by Mr Sadiq. Neither story features in Mr Rahi’s Defence or witness statement and in my judgement, he made both of them up at the time that he was answering questions in cross-examination (new evidence in cross-examination an indication of unsatisfactory evidence per Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson).

The striking similarity between the two stories is, in my judgement likely to be accounted for by Mr Rahi being unable, in the time available to him to think of a distinctly different story to tell about recording the second introduction. I reject both stories as entirely implausible, noting that there is not a single piece of documentary evidence to support either of them and neither feature in Mr Rahi’s defence or witness statement.

I have already mentioned that Mr Rahi accepts that there is a tradition, in Pakistani folksongs, of singing the name of the author of the song at the end of the song. I have also referred to Mr Rahi’s explanation of why he sang “Pasha” or “Pashay” at the end of Song 12. I have rejected his two explanations as both implausible and inconsistent.

The Claimants have produced audio files of Mr Rahi singing what they say is “Sadiq” at the end of Song 2, Song 3 and Song 4, all of which the Claimants say were authored by Mr Sadiq and the Claimants say that Mr Rahi sings Sadiq as an acknowledgment that Mr Sadiq was the author of those songs. In his defence to Claim 72, Mr Rahi says that he was using the word Sadiq to mean “true” or “truth”. It appears that the word Sadiq can be used to mean “true” or “truth” in Punjabi (as apparently can a number of other words). However, Mr Rahi accepted that, when in the transcript of a song, the name of the author is inserted a mark called a “Takhallus” is place above the name of author and in the Book, Mr Rahi has replaced the word “Sadiq” at the end of Songs 2,3 and 4 with his name, “Rahi” and put a Takhallus above his name. Mr Rahi avoided, when asked the question, explaining why he would replace a word meaning “true” or “truth” with his own name and insert a Takhallus above it in the Book (avoiding answering questions, an indication of unsatisfactory evidence per Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson). I am satisfied that when Mr Rahi sings “Sadiq” in Songs 2,3 and 4 it is as a credit to Mr Sadiq as author of those songs.

I have noted in paragraph 70 that Mr Rahi appears to have signed (and in some cases put his thumbprint) on 6 documents. These documents were examined by Mr Rahi’s handwriting expert, Ms Radley and the Claimants’ handwriting expert, Ms Caramiello. Ms Radley found the evidence as to whether the signatures on the documents were those of Mr Rahi inconclusive, but Ms Caramiello thought that the evidence that Mr Rahi’s signature appeared on all 6 documents was very strong and she was of the opinion that the signatures were those of Mr Rahi. For present purposes (considering the credibility of Mr Rahi’s denial that he signed 6 documents and applied his thumb print to 3 of them) I will not refer to the opinions of the handwriting experts, because there is a dispute between them as to the strength of the evidence supporting a finding that Mr Rahi signed the documents, instead I will refer to the opinion of the fingerprint experts, Mr Goodwin for the Claimants, and Mr Swan for Mr Rahi because they agreed that Mr Rahi’s thumbprint does appear on 3 of the documents which they examined.

Mr Goodwin was cross-examined by Mr Pearson. Mr Goodwin said that he was 100% positive that Mr Rahi’s thumbprint was on 4 documents examined by him (Mr Swan said that he was not sure that Mr Rahi’s thumbprint appeared on the fourth document but he could not say that it did not). Mr Pearson tried to suggest to Mr Goodwin that perhaps Mr Rahi’s thumbprint had somehow been imitated and placed on the 4 documents. Mr Goodwin, whilst accepting that he was not an expert on the question of whether fingerprints could be fabricated sufficiently well to fool him, considered that it was extremely unlikely that that was what had happened in relation to the 4 documents that he was 100% certain Mr Rahi’s thumbprint appeared on. I reject any suggestion that somehow Mr Rahi’s thumbprint has been fabricated and put on documents examined by Mr Goodwin and Mr Swan, there is no evidence to support that conclusion, it was simply something suggested by Mr Pearson, for the first time when he cross-examined Mr Goodwin. The 3 documents that Mr Goodwin and Mr Swan agreed have Mr Rahi’s thumbprint on them are:

Mr Rahi denied signing or applying his own thumbprint to any of the 3 documents, I have found that he did sign and apply his thumbprint to them. This means that Mr Rahi’s evidence that he did not: (a) authorised Heera Enterprises to release any of his albums; (b) record any songs at Bhatti Studios; or (c) authorise Thar Productions to release any of his albums is wrong. Mr Rahi could have simply being mistaken about signing and applying his thumbprint to the 3 documents and about not authorising the release of any of his albums through Heera Enterprises and Thar Productions and not recording any songs at Bhatti Studios, however I consider that Mr Rahi was at least reckless as to whether what he said was true or not (that is he was prepared to make assertions that suited his case without caring whether what he said was true or not) if not said knowing it to be untrue and Mr Rahi’s credibility as a witness is consequently undermined.

In his defence to Claim 115, Mr Rahi says that he only has a passing acquaintance with Mr Jutt and Rana. In saying this, Mr Rahi was responding to the assertion in the Particulars of Claim that Mr Rahi’s close association with Mr Jutt and Rana (who witnessed the Assignment from Ms Manzoor to her manager, Mr Qureshi of Ms Manzoor’s rights, as singer, in songs which formed the basis of Mr Qureshi’s 3 strikes aimed at the First Claimant’s YouTube channel) suggested that Mr Rahi had encouraged and acted in common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi in making those strikes. In cross-examination, Mr Rahi was shown a number of pictures of him in the company of Mr Jutt and/or Rana. Mr Rahi was asked about the pictures and the description's appearing underneath them. In one of those pictures, Mr Rahi is shown with his arms around Rana. When asked about this picture, Mr Rahi said that Rana had been his best friend for many years. This answer contradicted Mr Rahi’s assertion in his defence to Claim 115 that he only had a passing acquaintance with Rana (self-contradiction and new evidence in cross-examination, both indications of unsatisfactory evidence per Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson).

Mr Rahi was taken to a page from his YouTube channel which states that the lyrics for Song 8 were composed by Mr Akhtar (consistent with the First Claimant’s case). Mr Rahi said that there is software available that enables third parties to place things on YouTube channels without the knowledge or consent of the channel owner. Mr Rahi said that he had sent to his solicitor in the UK details of this software. When asked, Mr Rahi confirmed that he was asserting that the screenshot taken by the Claimants of a page from his YouTube channel had been changed by the Claimants or by someone on their behalf to show the author of Song 8 as Mr Akhtar. When it was pointed out to Mr Rahi that none of that was contained in his defence or witness statement, Mr Rahi said that he had sent his solicitor details of the software and suggested to them that it had been used by the Claimants (or by someone on their behalf) to alter the content of his YouTube channel.

I regard this to be another example of Mr Rahi making evidence up whilst he was being cross-examined in order to attempt to deal with evidence that contradicted his defence (disclosure shortcomings (the software); new evidence in cross-examination not contained in Mr Rahi’s defence or witness statement; blaming legal advisors and shifting his case, all signs of unsatisfactory evidence identified by Lewison J in Painter v Hutchinson).

Mr Abbas’s evidence was to the effect that: (a) Mr Rahi recorded 55 - 60 Albums at his studio (consistent with the Studio Letters signed by Mr Abbas confirming which albums Mr Rahi recorded at his studio); and (b) Mr Rahi wrote the lyrics and composed the music for all the songs that he sang.

Whilst I do not say that Mr Abbas was a dishonest witness, on being questioned in cross-examination it became apparent that the very positive statements that Mr Abbas made in support of Mr Rahi’s case were either not supported by what Mr Abbas in fact knew (in the case of his assertion that Mr Rahi wrote all the songs and composed all the music for the songs that he sang) or (in the case of the Studio Letters signed by Mr Abbas) it was unclear that Mr Abbas had properly checked which songs were recorded at his studio and in any event Mr Abbas was unable to link what he said Mr Rahi had recorded at his studio to the release of any of the 12 Songs.

It emerged in cross-examination that Mr Abbas’s assertion that Mr Rahi wrote all the lyrics to the songs he sang is based upon: (a) his recalling Mr Rahi bringing the lyrics to his studio for songs he recorded there; (b) seeing Mr Rahi amend and add to the lyrics of songs in his studio; (c) there being no other obvious author of the words; and (d) Mr Rahi saying that he wrote the words. The assertion is however based upon Mr Abbas’s recollection of events and he seemed to accept that he had only seen Mr Rahi amending or adding to the words of songs on a few occasions. The fact that Mr Abbas may have seen Mr Rahi bringing the words to songs to his studio is unsurprising and is no proof that Mr Rahi wrote them and Mr Rahi’s own assertion that he had written the words and there being no evidence of anyone else having written the words that Mr Rahi brought to Mr Abbas’s studio are weak evidence that it was Mr Rahi that wrote the words. I therefore attribute little weight to Mr Abbas’s assertions about Mr Rahi writing the lyrics to all the songs he sang. In any event, Mr Abbas gave no evidence that Mr Rahi had written the words to any of the 12 Songs.

As for the reliability of the Studio Letters signed by Mr Abbas and the assertion in his witness statement that Mr Rahi had recorded 55 – 60 albums at his studio, Mr Abbas accepted that it was Mr Rahi who brought to him a list of the albums that Mr Rahi said that he had recorded at Mr Abbas’s studio. Mr Abbas said that he could not recall the details of the albums that Mr Rahi had recorded at his studio, but he checked the details that Mr Rahi supplied against cassettes that Mr Rahi brought with him (not the records of his studio). That does not in my judgement, amount to Mr Abbas independently checking either how may albums Mr Rahi recorded at his studio or the details of the albums concerned and I attribute little weight to Mr Abbas’s Studio Letters. In addition, Mr Abbas said that he did not know how many of Mr Rahi’s albums, recorded at his studio were released or who they were released by. In those circumstances Mr Abbas’s evidence provides no support for Mr Rahi’s case that he wrote the 12 Songs or any of them.

Annex 1 to this judgement contains details of the First Claimant’s case and Mr Rahi’s case in respect of each of the 11 songs which are the subject matter of claim 72. The annex shows what Mr Rahi asserted, in his Defence, what the First Claimant asserted in its Reply and what is said about each song by Mr Rahi and Mr Ahmed (director of the First Claimant) in relation to the 11 songs. I will not repeat what is said there, but will proceed to say, in respect of each of the 11 songs which are the subject matter of Claim 72 who the author of each song was, insofar as I can.

One point made by Mr Rahi which is common to all 11 songs (and Song 12, the subject matter of Claim 92 and Issue 2) is that the songs all appear in the Book in respect of which the IPO granted the Certificate on 19 February 2020 to the effect that the copyright in the songs in the Book belonged, prima facie to Mr Rahi.

I attribute no weight to the fact that the IPO issued the Certificate, on 19^th February 2020 in respect of the Book, because, in cross-examination, Mr Rahi was taken to the documents that he filed with the IPO in support of his application for the Certificate. It is clear from that documentation that the certificate was granted on the basis of evidence contained in an affidavit sworn by Mr Rahi which consisted of a bare assertion, by Mr Rahi that he had written all the songs in the Book. I have already concluded, for reasons that I have given, that Mr Rahi’s bare assertions are of no evidential value for the purpose of these proceedings and I see no reason to conclude that Mr Rahi’s affidavit filed with the IPO (which is the basis upon which the Certificate was issued) should be treated any differently.

In considering the honesty and credibility of Mr Rahi I have already made findings which are relevant to Issues 1 and 2. Where those findings are relevant, when setting out my reasons for the conclusions that I reach in respect of Songs 1-11 which form the subject matter of Issue 1 and Song 12 which forms the subject matter of Issue 2, I will refer briefly to the relevant findings that I have already made about the honesty and credibility of Mr Rahi. In addition a number of the findings that I will make in relation to the factual circumstances of 12 songs which form the subject matter of Issues 1 and 2 are common to more than one song and where this is the case, I will also refer briefly to my previous findings in relation to songs that I have already dealt with, in explaining my conclusions in relation to later songs.

There are two versions of “Jagga” in the Book. The First Claimant says that the version appearing as Song 1050 in the Book (“Song 1050”) is substantially the same as the song sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976. I am satisfied that is correct for the following reasons:

For the following reasons I find that Song 1050: (a) has the same traditional song as its origin as the version sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976; or (b) is copied from Shaukat Ali’s version sung in 1976:

Finally I observe that, in his defence of Claim 72, Mr Rahi has sought to suggest that there are substantial differences between his Song 1050 and the song “Jagga” sung by Shaukat Ali (I have rejected that assertion). However, Mr Rahi issued strikes against videos containing Shaukat Ali singing “Jagga” on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel alleging that it infringed his rights in the song, but that allegation is inconsistent with the defence which Mr Rahi has run to Claim 72, that there are substantial differences between the two songs because, if there were substantial differences, then Mr Rahi could not legitimately claim that Shaukat Ali ’s version of “Jagga” infringed Mr Rahi’s rights in the song at page Song 1050 that he claimed to have written.

The First Claimant says that Song 2 was written by Mr Sadiq and not Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he wrote it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 2 for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that Song 3 was written by Mr Sadiq and not Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he wrote it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 3 for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that Song 4 was written by Mr Sadiq and not Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he wrote it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 4 for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that Song 5 was written or substantially written by Inayat Ali and not Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he wrote the song that appears as song 234 in the Book (“Song 234”).

Mr Rahi put the First Claimant to proof that Inayat Ali sang and released a song entitled Babul Meriyan Guddiyan in 1980. I am satisfied that Inayat Ali did sing and release a song entitled Babul Meriyan Guddiyan in 1980 and that he wrote it, for the following reasons:

Mr Rahi says, in his defence, that he wrote Babul Meriyan Guddiyan in 1989, whilst still at school and that only the first line of what he wrote is the same as the song which the Claimants say was sung by Inayat Ali in 1980. In his witness statement, Mr Rahi says that the song Babul Meriyan Guddiyan which he is the author of is completely different from the song which the Claimants say that Inayat Ali sang in 1980. In cross-examination, Mr Rahi said that he wrote only the chorus/hook line Babul Merriyan Guddiyan Tere Val Reh Gaiyan (“the Chorus/Hook Line”) whilst still at school, in 1981, not 1989, as set out in his defence.

Babul Meriyan Guddiyan is included in the Tip Top Cassette sleeve for Volume 2 (digital image and original cassette and sleeve produced by the Claimants) and the P & P Music cassette sleeve for Volume 23 to which I refer in paragraph 161 (b) and (d) above. The Tip Top cassette cover credits Allah Dita Khakhi (“Mr Khaki”) as the author of the song Babul Meriyan Guddiyan. I have found, on the balance of probabilities, that the digital image of the P & P Music cassette sleeve has been fabricated by copying a digital image of the Tip Top cassette sleeve and changing the author of all the songs to Mr Rahi (see paragraph 161 (f).

Language Reach have analysed the song that I have accepted was sung by Inayat Ali in 1980 and compared it to Song 234. They have concluded that the Chorus/Hookline is, as Mr Rahi asserts the only parts of the two songs that are the same. However Babul Meriyan Guddiya is the title to both songs and “Babul Meriyan Guddiya Tere Val Reh Gujjan” is repeated 14 times in Song 234 included in the Book.

I am satisfied that Mr Khaki produced Song 234 by taking the Hook Line/Chorus written by Inayat Ali and added words to it to create Song 234. I am satisfied of that because:

I note that there is again an inconsistency in the position which was taken by Mr Rahi when issuing strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel when he asserted that he owned the copyright in the song sung by Inayat Ali on videos on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and the position, he takes in these proceedings, that the song that he sang (Song 234) and claimed to be the author of (which I have rejected) is completely different or at least very different from the song sung by Inayat Ali that Mr Rahi issued the strikes against.

The First Claimant says that Song 6 was written by Mr Sadiq and not Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he wrote it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Sadiq wrote Song 6 for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that the author of Song 7 is Shaukat Ali. Mr Rahi says that he wrote the song that appears as song 828 in the Book (“Song 828”). It is agreed that the song which the Claimants say was sung by Shaukat Ali in 1985 and of which Shaukat Ali is the author only shares the chorus “Choti Umarein Pyar Kari Ral Jayegi Ajj” with Song 828.

The Claimants have produced an original cassette sleeve and cassette released by EMI in 1985 which shows Shaukat Ali as singer and author of the lyrics of the song Choti Umrein Pyar.

The Claimants have also produced an assignment dated 10 June 2002 assigning from Shaukat Ali to the Second Claimant the rights in various songs which the assignment says that Shaukat Ali has written, including Choti Umrein Pyar.

I attribute no value to Mr Rahi’s assertion that the track of Shaukat Ali singing Song 7, produced by the Claimants “sounds more recent than 1981”.

Mr Rahi claims that he started writing Song 828 while still at school, but did not complete it until 1989;

The Claimants have produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve for Mr Rahi’s Volume 49 shown as released by Heera Cassettes which includes the song with the title “Choti Umrein Pyar Kari Na”, but does not credit the lyrics of that song to any author. Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve, for Volume 49 said to be released by TMC Cassettes which credits Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album including a song with the title Choti Umrein Pyar Kari Na. The artwork for the two versions of volume 49 is the same.

I have accepted that Mr Rahi did authorise Heera Cassettes to release his albums, in spite of his solicitors asserting that. to the best of Mr Rahi’s knowledge he did not do so (see paragraphs 134 (c) and (d) and 135).

Mr McArthur did not compare the digital images of the Heera and TMC cassette sleeves for Volume 49, but he did compare the digital images of 3 Heera Stereo cassette sleeves produced by the Claimants with the digital images of 3 TMC sleeves produced by Mr Rahi, for volumes 28, 46 and 58. Mr McArthur concluded that the digital images of the TMC cassette sleeves have been copied from the digital images of the Heera cassette sleeves and altered to change the name of the company releasing the album to TMC Cassettes and the author of the songs on the cassette sleeve to Mr Rahi. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, because the artwork for the digital images of the Heera Cassette sleeve and the TMC Cassette sleeve is the same, that Mr Rahi, or someone acting at his direction altered the digital image of the Heera cassette sleeve for Volume 49 to show the album as released by TMC Cassettes and to credit Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on that cassette, specifically for the purpose of providing fabricated evidence in support of Mr Rahi’s claim in these proceedings that he wrote Song 7;

Mr Rahi refers to being credited on the PRS Register as the author of the song Choti Umrein Pyar, however I am satisfied that the PRS register is not a reliable source to identify the true author of songs for the reasons set out in paragraph 157 (f) above and note, in any event that the Claimants have produced evidence, that whilst Mr Rahi was credited on the PRS register as the author of Choti Umrein Pyar, prior to that credit, in 1993, Shaukat Ali was credited as the author of Choti Umrein Pyar.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Shaukat Ali is the author of a song which includes the chorus Choti Umrein Pyar Kari Ral Jayegi Ajj, because the original cassette and cassette sleeve shown as released by EMI in 1985 appears genuine on its face and there is no evidence to undermine the conclusion that it is, which conclusion is supported by the assignment produced by the Claimants from Shaukat Ali to the Second Claimant, of the rights in songs that the assignment says that Shaukat Ali is the author of, including Choti Umrein Pyar.

I reject Mr Rahi’s assertion that he started to write Song 828 whilst he was still at school and finished it in 1989. This is a bare assertion supported by no evidence. Mr Rahi suggest that he had written the chorus, Choti Umrein Pyar Kari Ral Jayegi Ajj, when at school, which he suggested had become popular long before he completed the song in 1989, the implication being that Shaukat Ali may have picked up the chorus that Mr Rahi had written at school and used it in his own song. That story is reminiscent of Mr Rahi’s story about writing, whilst at school, the poem which became Song 12, sung by Nusrat which I have found he made up in order to explain away how Nusrat came to sing Song 12 in 1985 when Mr Rahi did not record it until 2002. Similarly in relation to the chorus line Choti Umrein Pyar Kari Ral Jayegi Ajj, Mr Rahi was faced with having to explain how Shaukat Ali came to be singing those words in 1985 when Mr Rahi did not release an album with those words in until 2000. I find that Mr Rahi again made up a story about writing the chorus line Choti Umrein Pyar Kari Ral Jayegi Ajj at school and it becoming popular, to overcome the obvious difficulty of Shaukat Ali singing a chorus line that Mr Rahi claimed to have written, 15 years before Mr Rahi recorded it.

The First Claimant says that Song 8 was written by Mr Akhtar and not Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he wrote it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Akhtar wrote Song 8 for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that Song 9 was written by Mr Akhtar. Mr Rahi says that he wrote it. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Akhtar wrote Song 9 for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that the song Pekey Hundey Maawan Naal was written by Mr Sandhu as a song in Indian Punjabi (“Pekey Hundey”). Mr Rahi says that he wrote the song Maa Mari Te Rishti in Pakistani Punjabi and that it appears as song 904 in the Book (“Maa Mari”). Mr Rahi says that Maa Mari has nothing in common with the song Pekey Hundey other than the use of the word Maa or Maawen which means mother and is commonly used in both Indian and Pakistani Punjabi songs.

The Claimants have produced an image of a Cassette sleeve shown as released by Super Cassette Industries Ltd in India in 2001 which credits Mr Sandhu as the author of Pekey Hundey. Mr Sandhu has signed a witness statement for the Claimants confirming that he is the author of Pekey Hundey. I have accepted Mr Sandhu’s evidence that he wrote Pekey Hundey in 2000 which is supported by the Cassette sleeve, showing that Pekey Hundey was released in India the following year (see paragraph 101 above).

The Claimants have also produced a digital image of an album sleeve containing details of songs sung by Mr Rahi, released by TP Gold in 2002 as Album 1 and the original cassette and cassette sleeve which includes the song Maa Mari, but does not credit authorship of that song to anyone. Mr Rahi has produced a digital image of a cassette sleeve shown as released by AR Music as Album 1, having the same artwork and the same details of songs as the digital image of the TP Gold cassette sleeve, but the digital image of the AR Music cassette sleeve credits Mr Rahi as author of all the songs on the album, including Maa Mari. Mr Rahi has not produced an original AR Music cassette or cassette sleeve.

Mr McArthur compared the two digital images of cassette sleeves for Album 1 and concluded that the digital image of the AR Music Cassette sleeve had been copied from a digital image of the TP Gold cassette sleeve and been altered to show AR Music as the company releasing the album and Mr Rahi as the author of all the songs on the album. I have accepted the expert opinion of Mr McArthur. It follows that the digital image of the AR Music cassette sleeve has been fabricated and I find that it was fabricated by Mr Rahi or by someone at his direction for the purpose of supporting Mr Rahi’s case in these proceedings, that he wrote Maa Mari (see paragraphs 124 – 128 above);

In my judgement, the real issue in respect of the songs Pekey Hundey and Maa Mari is whether Mr Rahi, or someone else plagiarised Pekey Hundey to create the song Maa Mari which appears as Song 904 in the Book, not who wrote Maa Mari. I find that whoever wrote Maa Mari plagiarised Pekey Hundey to do so and I have ruled out the possibility that Mr Sandhu plagiarised Maa Mari, in creating Pekey Hundey, for the following reasons:

The First Claimant says that Song 11 is a traditional song widely performed, long before Mr Rahi claims to have written it. Mr Rahi says that he wrote Song 11. I find that Song 11 is based on a traditional song and the insofar as the version of Song 11 appearing in the Book has been adapted from the traditional song, the adaptations were made by Mr Gujrati. I make these findings for the following reasons:

The Second claimant says that Song 12 was written by Mr Pasha. Mr Rahi says that he wrote Song 12. For the following reasons, I find that Song 12 was written by Mr Pasha and that Mr Rahi did not licence or purport to licence Nusrat to use Song 12:

It is convenient to deal with Issue 3 and Issue 5 together, because the questions of whether Mr Rahi’s complaints to YouTube were malicious and whether they were intended to cause loss to the Claimants are linked.

Mr Gale refers me to the observations of Stable J in Wilts United Dairies v Robinson (Thomas) [1957] 1 WLUK 501. The quotation referred to by Mr Gale in his skeleton argument was, of itself a quote which Stable J was reciting from directions given to a jury about the question of when malice could be found by the jury, which appeared to have been approved of by the Court of Appeal. The quotation was as follows: “If a man says something he knows to be untrue, it is malicious ipso facto, because he has said something that is false and something that he knows to be false.” Having reviewed a number of cases on malice, (including the case in which the direction was given to the jury) Stable J drew a number of propositions from them, including “The third proposition which I derived from the cases is this that if you publish an injurious falsehood that you know to be false, albeit that your only object is your own advantage and with no intention or desire to injure the person in relation to whose goods the falsehood is published, then provided that it is clear from the nature of the falsehood that it is intrinsically injurious - I say “intrinsically” meaning not deliberately aimed with intent to injure but as being inherent in the state itself, the defendant is responsible, the malice consisting in the fact that what he published he knew to be false.”

I have concluded that Mr Rahi did not write any part of Songs 2 - 4, 6 - 9, or 11, which appear in the Book. I am satisfied that Mr Rahi must have known, when he issued strikes to YouTube in relation to videos on the First Claimants YouTube channel containing Songs 2-4, 6 - 9 and 11 that he did not write the songs appearing in those videos, there is no scope for Mr Rahi being mistaken about that, based upon my findings.

Mr Rahi claims that there are substantial differences between: (a) Song 1, as sung by Shaukat Ali in 1979 and Song 1050 in the Book; (b) Song 5, as sung by Inayat Ali in 1980 and Song 234 in the Book; (c) Song 7, as sung by Shaukat Ali in 1988 and song 828 in the Book; and (d) In relation to Song 10, the song Pekey Hundey, of which I have accepted the author is Mr Sandhu and Song 904 in the Book (Maa Mari).

I have found that:

Mr Rahi may have written some of the words to Songs 1050, 234 and 828 in the Book, but Mr Rahi issued strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel on the basis that he had written Songs 1, 5, 7 and 10 which appeared in videos on the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, but Mr Rahi knew that he had not written any of: (a) Song 1 sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976; (b) Song 5 sung by Inayat Ali in 1980; or (c) Song 7 sung by Shaukat Ali in 1985 and yet his strikes related to videos containing those songs. Mr Rahi therefore, on any view issued strikes to YouTube against videos containing songs that he knew he had not written, claiming that he had.

I am also satisfied that Mr Rahi knew that he did not write Maa Mari, alternatively did not write Maa Mari without plagiarising Pekey Hundey to do so. In any event, Mr Rahi issued strikes against the song Pekey Hundey appearing on the First Claimant YouTube channel and I am satisfied that he knew that he had not written Pekey Hundey, there is no scope, on my findings for concluding that Mr Rahi was merely mistaken about that.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi decided to issue strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel in retaliation for strikes which, it is common ground, the First Claimant had issued against Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel and/or to try to put pressure upon the First Claimant to stop issuing strikes against or withdraw strikes it had made against Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel. As noted in paragraph 191 above, in determining whether Mr Rahi’s complaints to YouTube about content of the First Claimants YouTube channel were malicious, it does not matter whether Mr Rahi’s motive was to gain an advantage for himself or inflict loss on the First Claimant if the strikes were based upon Mr Rahi lying to YouTube about having written the songs which were the subject matter of the strikes (and I have concluded that he did lie) and the lies were “intrinsically injurious”. I am satisfied that the strikes were intrinsically injurious because of the actions that YouTube could take in response to those strikes (including, de-activating the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, taking down the videos which were the subject matter of the strikes and preventing the First Claimant from uploading new content onto its remaining YouTube channels all of which in fact happened). In any event, for the reasons that follow, I find that Mr Rahi did intend, by issuing three strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel to cause loss to the First Claimant.

Given that the First Claimant’s YouTube channel had 26 videos on it containing songs 1 – 11 which were sung by singers other than Mr Rahi (other than Song 2 and Song 10, sung by Mr Rahi in the film Danda Peer, but the rights to which film had been assigned to the First Claimant) the only way in which Mr Rahi could claim to YouTube that he had an interest in those songs, which would enable him to issue strikes, was by falsely claiming (as I have found he did) that he wrote those 11 songs.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi intended that the strikes he issued in respect of the First Claimant’s YouTube channel should cause loss to the First Claimant because: (a) Mr Rahi knew, that the strikes he issued in relation to the First Claimant’s YouTube channel were likely to cause loss to the First Claimant, because Mr Rahi accepted, in cross-examination, that he knew about YouTube’s three strike policy (that is if YouTube received three strikes within 90 days it would be entitled in accordance with its terms with the YouTube channel holder, to de-activate the channel); (b) Mr Rahi issued 3 strikes within 90 days; and (c) it is apparent, in my judgement, from media posts made by Mr Rahi and a video placed on Mr Rahi’s Facebook page, after YouTube de-activated the First Claimant’s YouTube channel (which I will refer to next) that Mr Rahi considered the de-activation of the First Claimant’s YouTube channel to be the successful and intended outcome of the three strikes that he had issued against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and the other steps taken by Mr Rahi and his lawyer leading up to that point.

Mr Rahi posted on his Facebook page, on 10 September 2020, an image with the heading “Akram Rahi and his lawyer Zaheer Ul Hassan Zahoor’s efforts have brought colours. The main channel of the Moviebox has been closed by YouTube”. Mr Zahoor assisted Mr Rahi in obtaining the Certificate for the Book and in taking proceedings (initially successfully) before the IPT In Pakistan, based upon the existence of the Certificate, to establish that Mr Rahi owned the copyright in the songs in the Book. The Certificate and the IPT proceedings gave substance to Rahi’s claim that he had written the songs which were the subject matter of his strikes and were important reasons why YouTube did not accept the First Claimant’s challenge to the strikes issued against its YouTube channel by Mr Rahi. I am satisfied that, by this post, Mr Rahi was confirming that he and his lawyer had taken steps to try to get the First Claimant’s YouTube channel closed down and had succeeded in doing so.

On 19 September 2020, Mr Rahi uploaded a video onto his own Facebook page in which he said: “Moviebox, very big channel of the gangsters, Almighty God has shut it down….” Then the matter became obvious, stay got confirmed, the matter became transparent and channel was shut down.”

In addition, prior to the hearing of the First Claimant’s application for an injunction in Claim 72 requiring Mr Rahi to withdraw his YouTube strikes, Mr Rahi refused to retract his YouTube strikes, in circumstances where YouTube had de-activated the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel causing an obvious and ongoing loss to the First Claimant. This supports my conclusion that Mr Rahi’s aim (or one of them) was to cause loss to the First Claimant.

As for the Second Claimant and Song 12, I am satisfied that Mr Rahi issued three separate strikes against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel maliciously, intending to cause loss to the Second Claimant for the following reasons:

I have concluded that Mr Rahi did not write songs 2-4, 6 , 8-9, 11 or 12 and that: (a) in relation to Songs 1, 5 and 7, at best, Mr Rahi added some words to the songs which were sung by Shaukat Ali in 1976 and 1985 and Inayat Ali in 1980; and (b) in relation to Song 10, Mr Rahi, at best, plagiarised the song Pekey Hundey to produce the song Maa Mari.

I have already concluded that Mr Rahi could not have mistakenly believed that he wrote Songs 2-4, 6, 8-9, 11 or 12 (paragraph 192). Mr Rahi did not assert that he had made such a mistake, his case being that he wrote the songs. I find that Mr Rahi fraudulently issued strikes to YouTube against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel in respect of the songs 2-4, 6, 8-9 and 11 and against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel against Song 12 claiming he had written them when he knew he had not.

As for Songs 1, 5, 7 and 10, I find that Mr Rahi fraudulently issued strikes to YouTube against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel in respect of the songs 1, 5, 7 and 10 claiming he had written them when he knew he had not, for the following reasons:

Mr Rahi argued in his defences to Claim 72 and Claim 92 that there was no interference with the relations between the First and Second Claimants and YouTube, even if Mr Rahi fraudulently claimed to YouTube that he wrote songs which appeared on the First and Second Claimant’s YouTube channels, because YouTube was free to take such action as it wished in response to the strikes issued by Mr Rahi, or to take no action at all.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi’s actions (as I found them to be) in fraudulently claiming to be the author of songs appearing on the First and Second Claimants’ YouTube channels, did interfere with the relations between the First and Second Claimants and YouTube, for the following reasons:

I am satisfied that YouTube took the following action against the First Claimant:

I am satisfied that the actions set out in paragraph 209 were taken as a result of Mr Rahi issuing (what I have found to be) fraudulent strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel because the First Claimant has produced copies of its correspondence with YouTube which confirms that the action being taken, was being taken because of the complaints made by Mr Rahi.

I am satisfied that YouTube issued a notice threatening to terminate the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel but did not terminate it, but that YouTube did delete the 12 videos which Mr Rahi issued strikes against on the basis that they contained Song 12 which Mr Rahi fraudulently claimed to have written and YouTube refused to allow the Second Claimant to upload new content onto its YouTube channel.

I am satisfied that the actions set out in paragraph 209 were taken as a result of Mr Rahi issuing (what I have found to be) fraudulent strikes against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel because the Second Claimant has produced copies of a notification from YouTube of the three strikes issued by Mr Rahi and giving notice that the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel is under threat of being terminated as a result of those three strikes being received.

In deciding Issue 8, I will:

The basis of 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:

As I have already noted, judgment was entered against Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor in default of them acknowledging service of Claim 115, on 14 April 2021. At the time of trial, Ms Manzoor had applied to set judgment aside (Mr Qureshi had not). The allegations of unlawful conduct against Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor in Claim 115 are:

Given that, at the date of trial there were extant judgments against both of them, I must take the allegations summarised in paragraph 214 above to be proved.

In his defence of Claim 115, Mr Rahi says that he was unaware of the Assignment between Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi or of complaints made by Mr Qureshi to YouTube. Mr Rahi also says that: (a) Mr Rahi and Ms Manzoor are both renowned singers in Pakistan and it would be surprising if they did not know each other; (b) he only has a passing acquaintance with Rana and Mr Jutt; and (c) whilst Mr Zahoor may have acted for Mr Rahi and subsequently Mr Qureshi in the IPT in Pakistan, this is not surprising, because Mr Zahoor is a specialist in IP law and is used by many in the music industry in Pakistan. Mr Rahi does not plead to the allegations made against Mr Qureshi and Ms Manzoor The question I need to decide is whether Mr Rahi conspired or acted in common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to cause loss to the First and Second Claimants by unlawful means (the unlawful means being the Assignment and the making of malicious and fraudulent claims by Mr Qureshi to the IPT and YouTube).

I observe, as preliminary points, that:

As I have already observed, the judgments entered against Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi (see paragraph 215) mean that it has already been determined that Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi conspired together or acted in a common design by unlawful means to cause loss to the First and Third Claimants. The question that I need to determine is whether Mr Rahi also acted as part of that conspiracy/common design. The burden falls on the First and Third Claimants to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Rahi did so. There are two elements which the First Claimant and the Third Claimant need to prove: (a) that Mr Rahi acted as part of a conspiracy/common design with Ms Manzoor/Mr Qureshi to cause loss to the First Claimant and Third Claimant; and (b) that Mr Rahi knew that the means used by Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to cause loss to the First Claimant and the Third Claimant were unlawful.

Annexe 2 to this judgment is a chronology of events that I consider to be relevant to the question of whether Mr Rahi conspired/acted in common design with Ms Manzoor/Mr Qureshi. The chronology includes the events which are directly relevant to Claim 72 and 92 and the events which are directly relevant to Claim 115. It is the First and Third Claimants’ case that Mr Rahi, wished to cause loss to the First Claimant and others (including the Second Claimant) by seeking to have their YouTube channels shut down and that, when he was frustrated in his attempts to do that himself, he encouraged and facilitated the taking of similar action by Mr Qureshi, with the same hoped for result of closing the First Claimant’s YouTube channels down. On the First and Third Claimants’ case therefore: (a) what action Mr Rahi took against the First and Second Claimants and when; (b) when threats that they say Mr Rahi made against them, were made; (c) the timing of when action was taken by Mr Qureshi and Mr Rahi; and (c) when Mr Rahi was frustrated in his attempts to take action in his own name - are all important to their case, that Mr Rahi encouraged Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the action that they took. The chronology at Annexe 2 is therefore intended to provide easy reference to the events which are relevant to all three claims. For greater ease of reference I have highlighted in red those actions which were taken by Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi, in respect of which, as I have said, the First and Third Claimants already hold judgments, the effect of which is that it has already been determined that Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi acted in common design/conspired together to cause loss to the First and Third Claimants, by unlawful means.

I am satisfied that, notwithstanding Mr Rahi’s assertion, in his defence to Claim 115, that he was unaware of the Assignment and of the complaints by Mr Qureshi to YouTube (to which bare assertion, as I have explained, I can attribute no evidential value) that Mr Rahi was aware of the Assignment, of the complaints that Mr Qureshi made to YouTube and that Mr Qureshi had instructed Mr Zahoor to issue proceedings in the IPT, at the time that those events occurred. I am satisfied of that for the reasons that follow.

In the video posted on Mr Rahi’s YouTube page on 19 September 2020 in my judgment, Mr Rahi was indicating that the action which he had taken, with the assistance of his lawyer, Mr Zahoor, which had resulted in the First Claimant’s YouTube channel being disabled, had been taken, not only for his own benefit, but for the benefit of singers, like him, whose material had been exploited by the First Claimant and other members of what Mr Rahi referred to as the “music mafia”, on YouTube and other digital platforms (see Annexe 2 where Mr Rahi speaks of “we” and “us”). Mr Rahi indicated that this was being done to the detriment of the singer who was being prevented by that “music mafia” from exploiting their own singing for their own commercial benefit on YouTube and other digital platforms. In the video Mr Rahi said that Ms Manzoor had come to him and told him that the First Claimant had done her wrong (the wrong being, I infer, exploiting the songs that Ms Manzoor had sung on its YouTube channels and preventing Ms Manzoor from exploiting them herself).

Ms Manzoor made a witness statement on 24 September 2020 in support of Mr Rahi’s opposition to the without notice injunction granted in Claim 72 being continued. In that witness statement, Ms Manzoor said she had not assigned the digital publishing rights in any of her works to the First or Second Claimants, nor received any royalties or benefits from them and any contracts they produced were fake. The First Claimant had published her works on digital platforms and she was now considering taking legal action.

Mr Rahi described both Rana and Mr Jutt as passing acquaintances in his defence. I have found (paragraph 145) that Mr Rahi lied in his defence when he said that he had merely a passing acquaintance with Rana, in light of his acceptance in cross-examination that Rana had been Mr Rahi’s best friend for many years. I am also satisfied that Mr Jutt cannot fairly be described as merely a passing acquaintance of Mr Rahi, given that:

I have already noted in paragraph 89 above, the comments of Lewison J (as he then was) in Painter v Hutchinson that “….lies in themselves do not necessarily mean that the entirety of the evidence of a witness should be rejected. A witness may lie in an attempt to bolster a case, but the actual case nevertheless remains good irrespective of the lie”.

Mr Rahi may have (as I have found) lied about Rana being a passing acquaintance, when in fact he has been his best friend for many years and at least made a misleading statement in his defence that Mr Jutt was no more than a passing acquaintance, when the evidence, in my judgment shows a much closer relationship than that, in order to bolster his case, that he knew nothing about the Assignment. It still may be true that he knew nothing about it.

Mr Qureshi used Mr Zahoor, the same lawyer as Mr Rahi had used to support the strikes that each of them made against the First Claimant’s YouTube channels (and in the case of Mr Rahi also the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel) by taking proceedings before the IPT.

I find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Rahi did know about the Assignment because: (a) his best friend, Rana was a witness to it; (b) Mr Jutt who I am satisfied at the time was a close acquaintance of Mr Rahi was the other witness; (c) there is no explanation of why Rana and Mr Jutt just happened to be present when the Assignment was signed; and (d) Ms Manzoor who: (i) complained to Mr Rahi about being done wrong by the First Claimant; (ii) Mr Rahi expressed solidarity with in his video of 19 September 2020; and (iii) provided a witness statement, dated 24 September 2020, in an attempt to assist Mr Rahi in resisting the continuation of the injunction granted against Mr Rahi in Claim 72, is unlikely to have neglected to tell Mr Rahi about arranging, by the Assignment, to transfer her rights as singer in 400 songs to Mr Qureshi or of the plan (as entry of judgement against Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi has determined there must have been) of Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to issue strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel.

I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the Assignment was executed as it purports to have been, on 5 May 2020 and find that it was executed after 24 September 2020, for the following reasons:

My finding that the Assignment was executed after 24 September 2020 makes it even more likely that Ms Manzoor would have told Mr Rahi about Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi’s scheme to issue strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel. Ms Manzoor had just provided a witness statement to support Mr Rahi’s attempts to overturn the interim injunction granted against him on 17 September 2020 (which required Mr Rahi to retract his strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel). It would, in my judgement, have been apparent to Mr Rahi that his attempts to deactivate (or maintain the deactivation) of the First Claimant’s YouTube channel had been or would be frustrated. It is in my judgement highly unlikely that, in those circumstances, Ms Manzoor would not have told Mr Rahi about the plan she and Mr Qureshi had for submitting strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel. Whether, as the First and Third Claimants allege, Mr Rahi encouraged Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the action that they took, in common design is the issue I will address next. Mr Rahi simply knowing about what Ms Manzoor/Mr Qureshi were doing would not amount to him encouraging or persuading them to take that action.

In paragraph 31 of his witness statement Mr Rahi says that, after he set up his own YouTube channel he had disputes with the holders of various YouTube channels about those channels having songs upon them sung by Mr Rahi. Mr Rahi says that he settled those disputes with everyone except the First Claimant, Hi-Tech and the Second Claimant (by “settling these disputes” Mr Rahi means that the holders of those YouTube channels took down the songs that Mr Rahi had sung from their YouTube channels). In the video posted on Mr Rahi’s Facebook page on 19 September 2020 (see Annex 2) Mr Rahi complains that the First Claimant, Second Claimant, Orchard and Hi - Tech were exploiting Mr Rahi’s songs and those of other Pakistani singers (including Ms Manzoor) on their YouTube channels. In addition, between May 2017 and April 2020, as a result of challenges made against Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel by the First Claimant, the revenue earned from 4 albums sung by Mr Rahi, which appeared on his own YouTube channel, had been paid to the First Claimant, from May 2017 to April 2020, when Mr Rahi objected to that arrangement continuing. In response to Mr Rahi’s objection, the First Claimant issued strikes against Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel in respect of those 4 albums.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi believed and believes strongly that only he should be entitled to exploit commercially the songs that he has sung, on his own YouTube channel and other digital platforms and only he should be entitled to all the revenue generated from them and that when Mr Rahi refers to the “music mafia” in the video posted on his Facebook page on 19 September 2020, he is referring to those companies which were exploiting the songs of Mr Rahi and other Pakistani singers on their YouTube channels and other digital platforms. All of that is apparent, in my judgment from:

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi concluded that he would be in a far better position to issue and maintain strikes against the First and Second Claimant’s YouTube channels if he could persuade YouTube that he had written songs which had been uploaded to those YouTube channels without Mr Rahi’s consent as author of the songs (not merely that he was the singer of the songs). I am satisfied of that because: (a) the First Claimant hosted movies on its main YouTube channel and not music albums and Mr Rahi had not sung songs in many of those movies (possibly only Song 2 in the Movie Danda Peer) and Mr Rahi would know, in my judgment that any rights he had as singer, would be likely to have vested in the producer of the movie; and (b) I am satisfied that Mr Rahi (in spite of him denying it) knew that he had, historically assigned his rights as singer of the songs on his albums to the producer of the album and the First and Second Claimants could resist strikes from Mr Rahi against their YouTube channels and make their own strikes against Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel (as the First Claimant had done) if Mr Rahi merely claimed to be the singer of songs.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi knew that he had assigned his rights as singer in songs he sang because: (a) I have found (paragraph 143 and 159 (d)) that Mr Rahi assigned his rights as singer in songs to Heera Enterprises and Thar Productions, in spite of Mr Rahi denying it; and (b) in my judgement, Mr Rahi’s video post of 19 September 2020 (see Annex 2) confirms that singers, including himself, were historically paid to record cassettes and CD s, implying that the rights in the recording of the singer, in those circumstances, would belong to the party who paid the singer to record the song.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi knew that, if he merely asserted to YouTube, in support of strikes against the First and Second Claimants YouTube channels, that he had written songs which appeared on the First and Second Claimant’s YouTube channels, then those strikes were likely to be rejected by YouTube. Mr Rahi’s problem (as I have found) was that he had not written the songs that he wished to claim that he had written and there was therefore no proof available to him to offer to YouTube in support of the strikes that he wanted to issue against the First and Second Defendants’ YouTube channels, as author of songs appearing on those YouTube channels.

I am satisfied that Mr Rahi sought advice from Mr Zahoor about how he could prove his ownership, as author, of the copyright in songs. Mr Rahi himself asserts that Mr Zahoor is a specialist in Pakistani intellectual property law and acts, in particular, for participants in the Pakistani music industry. Mr Zahoor would therefore have the necessary expertise to know how this could be done, and I am satisfied that Mr Rahi would not have known. In saying this, I am not suggesting that Mr Zahoor knew that Mr Rahi did not write some or all of the songs that Mr Rahi wished to “prove” that he wrote. I am satisfied, because Mr Zahoor subsequently acted for Mr Rahi in obtaining the Certificate from the IPO and in proceedings before the IPT, that Mr Zahoor advised Mr Rahi that: (a) he could obtain the Certificate from the IPO of his ownership of the songs in the Book which would be prima facie evidence, under Pakistani law, that Mr Rahi owned the copyright in those songs: (b) a certificate from the IPO could be obtained, merely by filing an affidavit sworn by Mr Rahi in which he asserting that he had written the songs in the Book; and (c) that certificate could then form the basis of Mr Rahi obtaining a declaration that Mr Rahi held the copyright in the songs in the Book and an injunction to prevent that copyright from being infringed by the First and Second Claimants hosting those songs on their YouTube channels.

Having secured, with Mr Zahoor’s assistance, the Certificate from the IPO in respect of the Book on 19 February 2020, in April 2020, Mr Rahi objected to YouTube continuing to pay revenue from 4 albums on Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel to the First Claimant. The First Claimant responded by issuing strikes against Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel and Mr Rahi issued his own counternotices in May 2020. The Certificate from the IPO would only help Mr Rahi to claim the revenue from the 4 albums hosted on Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel, if the songs on those 4 albums were included in the Book and I have not been told that they were. I am satisfied that Mr Rahi believed that, if he followed Mr Zahoor’s advice as to how he could produce evidence of his ownership of the rights as author in a large number of songs hosted on the First and Second Claimants own YouTube channels, he could obtain a significant amount of leverage over the First and Second Claimants to get what he wanted (to obtain the YouTube revenue from all recordings of his singing).

In June and July 2020, Mr Rahi issued three strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel in relation to Songs 1 -11 and between 9 July 2020 and 23 July 2020, three strikes against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel, in relation to Song 12. He relied initially on the Certificate, but on 20 July 2020 started proceedings in the IPT against the First Claimant, Hi-Tech and the Second Claimant for a declaration that he owned the copyright in the 12 Songs and sought an injunction restraining them from publishing the 12 songs on their YouTube channels.

The First Claimant’s YouTube channel was disabled on 9 September 2020. On 10 September 2020, Mr Rahi posted a message on his Facebook page that the efforts of Mr Rahi and his lawyer, Mr Zahoor had succeeded in closing down the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel (see Annexe 2). On 17 September 2020 the First Claimant obtained a without notice injunction against Mr Rahi, in Claim 72, requiring him to retract the strikes that he had sent to YouTube in respect of the First Claimant’s YouTube channel. On 19 September a video of Mr Rahi and Mr Zahoor was uploaded onto Mr Rahi’s Facebook page, which indicated an intention to continue action against the First and Second Claimant (and others he described as part of the “Music Mafia”) (see Annexe 2).

On 29 September 2020, Mr Rahi undertook to retract the strikes that he issued to YouTube in relation to the First Claimant’s YouTube channel. Mr Rahi had now been finally frustrated in his attempts to close down the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, relying upon his ownership of the copyright in Songs 1 – 11 and he faced having to pay damages to the First Claimant for the losses that he had caused them to incur by issuing strikes against their YouTube channels. Mr Rahi knew (because his claims that he wrote Songs 1 – 11 were fraudulent) that there was at least a serious possibility that those claims would succeed. Further, Mr Rahi could not issue any further strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channels, based upon his owning the copyright in any other songs in the Book without it being highly likely that the First Claimant would be able to frustrate that action by obtaining another injunction in England and Mr Rahi exposing himself to yet further claims for damages from the First Claimant. Notwithstanding all of this, Mr Rahi did not retract the strikes that he had made against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel and the Second Claimant issued Claim 92 on 9 November 2020 and obtained an injunction on 19 November 2020 requiring Mr Rahi to retract the strikes that he had issued against the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel.

Mr Rahi went to extraordinary lengths to put himself in a position to issue strikes against the First and Second Claimant’s YouTube channels, based upon a fraudulent claim that he had written Songs 1 – 12. I am satisfied that Mr Rahi’s aim in doing so was: (a) to force the First and Second Claimants and any other member of the “Music Mafia” to concede that only Mr Rahi should have the benefit of the revenue generated from songs he had sung (see paragraph 232); (b) failing that, to close down the First and Second Claimant’s YouTube channels to stop them hosting his music; and (c) to retaliate for strikes which had been issued against his YouTube channel at least by the First Claimant in respect of 4 of Mr Rahi’s albums which resulted in the revenue earned on Mr Rahi’s YouTube channel, from those albums, being paid to the First Claimant, until April 2020. Mr Rahi clearly showed satisfaction on 10 September 2020 at the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel being shut down. In summary, I do not consider that Mr Rahi would have easily given up his attempts to obtain leverage over the First and Second Claimant or to retaliate for their obtaining revenue from YouTube and other digital platforms for songs that Mr Rahi had a sung, but, for the reasons I have given, I also consider that Mr Rahi, by 29 September 2020 would have understood that he could not be seen to be issuing strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel himself for the reasons set out in paragraph are 240 above.

I have found that Mr Rahi would have known about the Assignment and the action being taken by Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 221 – 230 above. One of the reasons I gave was that Rana, one of the witnesses to the Assignment, was Mr Rahi’s best friend and the other witness to the Assignment, Mr Jutt was a close acquaintance of Mr Rahi (not, as Mr Rahi suggested in his defence, merely passing acquaintances of Mr Rahi).

The fact that the two witnesses to the Assignment were the best friend and a close acquaintance of Mr Rahi’s and that he and they, in their respective witness statements, attempted to suggest otherwise, rather than to explain why they happened to be present when the Assignment was executed, is a factor suggesting that Mr Rahi was involved in the arrangements for the execution/witnessing of the Assignment and therefore involved in encouraging Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the action that they did take (including Mr Qureshi issuing strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel and instructing Mr Zahoor to issue proceedings on his behalf in the IPT). It is only however a factor and I will need to consider it alongside the other circumstantial evidence relied on by the First and Third Claimants to decide whether Mr Rahi was in fact involved in encouraging Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the action they did.

In his defence, Mr Rahi accepts that he and Ms Manzoor know each other, but he says that this is simply because they are both renowned singers of Pakistani Punjabi songs.

I do not find that Mr Rahi and Ms Manzoor were at any relevant time close friends, but Ms Manzoor is: (a) one of the three Pakistani singers mentioned in the video uploaded to Mr Rahi’s Facebook page on 19 September 2020 (see Annexe 2) as complaining to Mr Rahi that the First Claimant had done an injustice to them; and (b) one of three Pakistani singers who made witness statements in support of Mr Rahi’s initial opposition to the injunction granted against him in Claim 72 being continued. In that witness statement, Ms Manzoor refers to the First and Third Claimants releasing her albums on digital sites without her permission and without paying her and to them producing contracts which were fake. I have found that it is unlikely that Ms Manzoor would not at least have told Mr Rahi about the plans of Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to issue strikes against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel (see paragraph 228).

Mr Zahoor clearly played a key role for Mr Rahi in obtaining the IPO certificate for the Book and issuing and pursuing a claim in the IPT against the First and Second Claimants, which led to YouTube deactivating the First Claimant’s main YouTube channel on 9 September (Mr Rahi says as much in the statement on his Facebook page issued on 10 September 2020, see paragraph 200 and Annexe 2). Mr Zahoor performed a similar role for Mr Qureshi, in supporting the strikes issued by Mr Qureshi against the First Claimant’s YouTube channel, by bringing proceedings on Mr Qureshi’s behalf before the IPT.

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Rahi encouraged Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to take the action which it has been determined amounted to a conspiracy/common design between them to cause loss to the First and Third Claimants by unlawful means and Mr Rahi thereby was part of the conspiracy/common design with them.

If Mr Rahi did not know that Ms Manzoor had already assigned, to the Third Claimant her rights as singer of the songs appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels, then he cannot have acted in a conspiracy or common design with Ms Manzoor and Mr Qureshi to use unlawful means to cause loss to the First or Third Claimants. This is because the unlawful means is Mr Qureshi claiming rights that could not be assigned to him by the Assignment in songs sung by Ms Manzoor appearing on the First Claimant’s YouTube channels (because Ms Manzoor had already assigned those rights to the Third Claimant).

I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Rahi did know at least that it was likely that Ms Manzoor had assigned to the Third Claimant the rights that she had as singer in the songs sung by Ms Manzoor that appeared on the First Claimants YouTube Channels because:

I am satisfied that the actions of Mr Rahi pleaded in Claim 72 caused loss to the First Claimant as a result at least of: (a) its main YouTube channel being de-activated by YouTube from 9 September 2020; and (b) YouTube preventing the First claimant from uploading new content to its other YouTube channels.

I am satisfied that the actions of Mr Rahi pleaded in Claim 92 caused loss to the Second Claimant as a result at least of: (a) YouTube requiring the removal from the Second Claimant’s YouTube channel of the 12 videos which included Song 12 within them; and (b) YouTube preventing the Second Claimant from uploading new content onto its YouTube channel.

I am satisfied that the actions of Mr Rahi caused loss to the First Claimant and (by virtue of the assignment dated 1 October 2015 pleaded in paragraph 18 of the Particulars of Claim in Claim 115) the Third Claimant as a result at least of: (a) the removal from the First Claimant’s YouTube channel of content which included the Works: and (b) YouTube preventing the First Claimant from uploading new content to its YouTube channels.

Given the conduct of Mr Rahi which I have referred to in this judgment, I consider it appropriate to grant permanent injunctions against Mr Rahi, in the terms sought in Claim 72, Claim 92 and Claim 115. In simple terms, the reason why I consider this appropriate is that Mr Rahi has displayed a willingness, acting in his own name and through others to pursue a relentless and fraudulent campaign aimed at damaging the economic interests of the First – Third Claimants, either as an end in itself or as a means of forcing the Claimants to stop exploiting songs sung by Mr Rahi for their own commercial benefit, in order to leave Mr Rahi free to do so. The Claimants are entitled, in my judgment, to the protection of a suitably worded injunction which may serve the dual purpose of: (a) dissuading Mr Rahi from issuing any strikes himself against the Claimants’ YouTube channels or encouraging others to do so (and dissuading others from doing so at Mr Rahi’s encouragement); and (b) enabling the Claimants to demonstrate to YouTube that there is in place an extant injunction that prohibits Mr Rahi from engaging in issuing strikes against the Claimants YouTube channels or encouraging others to do so.