posted by davidt on Wednesday February 14 2007, @11:00AM
Dol Bailey sends the link:

Joyce v Morrisey & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 1711 (6 November 1998) -
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Interesting reading, but why is it impossible to get transcripts of what each member of the Smiths said on the stand? That's what I've always wanted to read, but has never been available. Isn't it part of public record in the UK?
    king leer -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @11:31AM (#248956)
    (User #80 Info)
  • Lord Justice Thorpe put it best. While his clarifying opinion (and the opinions of the other two Lord Justices) ought to be given much greater weight in the "court of public opinion" than Judge Weeks', it's the lower court's "easy headline" comment that still today gets the press coverage. Does anyone else know of anything else done or said (before or after this case) by His Honour Judge Weeks QC that would help us assess his personality?
    workingclassface -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @11:57AM (#248958)
    (User #17132 Info)
  • "As many famous trials have demonstrated however intelligent and gifted the litigant the ground upon which the contest takes place is so uneven that he is inevitably worsted. By misinterpreting his role Mr Morrissey clearly forfeited the judge’s sympathy "

    Holy cow! Isn't that a bad thing to say about a system that's supposed to be impartial?

    Anonymous -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @12:31PM (#248963)
  • This is just the appeal ruling. This has been posted many times before on this site and has been on the internet for years.
    Anonymous -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @12:31PM (#248964)
  • I don't get why this is posted on Moz-Solo now, I've read it, and the original case details, on Moz-Solo before (posted in the comments) must be years ago now. Very interesting but hardly news or noteworthy IMHO.
    2-J -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @01:13PM (#248967)
    (User #4798 Info)
    • Re:Why now? by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday February 15 2007, @04:52AM
  • After reading parts of the case, I unfortunately agreed with the appellate court. There's a good reason that the default rule for a formation of a partnership is equal split of the liabilities and the profits. And that you must create something substantial (such as a written agreement) to alter the rule. I think Morrissey and Marr were entitled to %40 each (or maybe %35), and they probably talked about it somewhat with Joyce. But they should have put it in writing. Finally, don't blame the appellate court. The case turned on credibility, and appellate judges don't evaluate (for the most part) these matters. It could be less that Moz isn't credible, in that his personality type conveys a sneaky temperament (i.e. shy and withdrawn). Oh well.

    Anonymous -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @02:35PM (#248980)
    • Re:case by 2-J (Score:1) Wednesday February 14 2007, @03:32PM
      • Re:case by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday February 14 2007, @03:35PM
        • Re:case by 2-J (Score:1) Wednesday February 14 2007, @03:43PM
        • Re:case by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday February 14 2007, @03:45PM
          • Re:case by Anonymous (Score:0) Friday February 16 2007, @07:46AM
            • Re:case by Anonymous (Score:0) Friday February 16 2007, @08:41AM
    • Re:case by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday February 14 2007, @06:20PM
      • Re:case by Anonymous (Score:0) Wednesday February 14 2007, @06:31PM
  • The first instance decision (from the High Court case) is available in hard copy (in the All England Law Reports).

    Try as might (and, as a lawyer, I have access to a number of subscription only legal databases), I have not been able to find the judgement online.

    I do, however, recall reading the judgement back in the 1990s whilst at Law School and I have to admit, it does make interesting reading.

    Maybe I'm biased, but (the Partnership Act notwithstanding) I am still 110% behind Morrissey & Marr. If only they'd had the foresight to put everything in writing!
    Evil Legal Eagle -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @02:45PM (#248982)
    (User #12071 Info)
  • oh my, wish i was a law school student, i'll make this full case memory into a somekind of international law journal and make disertation on it. the title is "the flawless of mutual accomodation, tormenting the law?"

    but i won't judge, i won't
    Peter Marr -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @05:20PM (#248999)
    (User #17077 Info)
  • It's funny that this has been posted NOW. But because you all know that Morrissey was robbed and has been robbed ever since - you only have to browse the detail of the email posted on true-to-you for the exact position from Morrissey about that case and that decision - and those 'charades' continue(d) for several years.

    How sad it has been to see Joyce decending into a money making machine (or trying !) because over £200k is surely enough for anyone, never mind £500k + Where has it all gone ?

    Living off another person is a joke and a sad way to live a life. It's all very sad. It's sad and depressing and annoying and a total joke. Sad and true. What a joke Joyce has made of the Smiths entire musical legacy and memories. It gives a sour taste in the mouth just writing about it here today.
    Anonymous -- Wednesday February 14 2007, @05:24PM (#249000)
  • oh, just pay the lad his money and lets be done with all this.
    billybu69 -- Thursday February 15 2007, @03:32AM (#249030)
    (User #18278 Info)
  • Basically, Moz should pay the money and get on with his life. It's long since got way past ridiculous.

    Whether he or anyone else likes it, Mike Joyce was a full-time, highly important member of The Smiths. Even if he'd been a full-time kazoo player, he'd have still been a member of The Smiths. I class the band as a four-piece, and always have done.

    There's always this snobbery about singers and songwriters being more important than drummers, but you only have to listen to the songs to recognise quite how fantastic some of the drumming is. In some cases - This Night Has Opened My Eyes springing very much to mind - Joyce's drumming actually makes the song.

    Okay, so Moz and Marr did the bulk of the media work, and Johnny took on a lot of the admin/management stuff, but that doesn't make Rourke or Joyce any less a part of the band. Maybe there should've been costings done to physically pay Moz and Marr for the extra duties they undertook, but - still - Mike Joyce was an integral member of the band, and anyone that says different is an utter tool. Moz/Marr 40%/40%, Rourke/Joyce 10%/10% for me isn't right, and while 25% each seems excessive, I think something like 30%/30%, 20%/20% is reasonable.

    I think a lot of people have blindly assumed that Joyce is claiming for a share of songwriting and publishing royalties, which obviously isn't the case. People can catcall him, but how would you feel if you'd recorded, toured and lived The Smiths for 5 years only to have history try and tell you that you were classed as little more than a hired hand?

    Not that I actually care about this any more. The thing that really rankles is when Mike Joyce gets a bad press from people because he keeps trying to get his money.

    It's unbelievably sad that it reached court, and it's even sadder that a decade later we're still talking about the court case.

    Morrissey made his bed though, let's not forget.
    lutewhine -- Thursday February 15 2007, @05:12AM (#249036)
    (User #10051 Info)
  • ...that Moz is yet to pay any of the owed royalties to Mike Joyce yet? I remember reading in (i think) an interview in Mojo that he has yet to pay him anything, and that Joyce has put some kind of order on Moz's mums house so that she can't move unless Joyce gets the money.

    It's not that important of course, I'm just quite curious as it confirms Moz's slightly dodgy bitter attitude towards Mike Joyce and ex-band members in general. Still, you have to love him!

    Also, on another point, how rich do people think Morrissey is? Do you think that 25% of recording royalties would make a huge difference to his wealth and that he is only holding back out of bitterness?
    viggerz -- Thursday February 15 2007, @06:36AM (#249046)
    (User #8421 Info)
  • In the LA Weekly interview there was a mention of the legal strife which suggets that it's all over. Does say how it was settled though.

    "After so many crises — from the drug and personnel problems of the Smiths (who broke up in 1987, after guitarist Johnny Marr quit), to the legal fights among bandmates for royalties (now sorted), to label troubles, Morrissey has, for the moment anyway, achieved what appears to be a smoothly functioning career." at/15505/

    Anonymous -- Thursday February 15 2007, @07:13AM (#249049)
  • I'm a long-time Smiths fan, but this is the first I've heard that Johnny was unhappy that early on.

    I remember him saying in an interview circa '88 that the Smiths was never an "easy" band to be in; he said there was always tension, but that it made for greater creativity.
    Anonymous -- Friday February 16 2007, @08:47AM (#249180)
  • Does that mean you've moved on to the right one?

    Anonymous -- Thursday February 15 2007, @01:29AM (#249024)
    • Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous (Score:0) Thursday February 15 2007, @01:32PM
  • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.

[ home | terms of service ]