Competition Appeal Tribunal strikes out Blur drummer’s CPO claim

28/08/25

In a rare example of the Competition Appeal Tribunal declining to certify collective proceedings, an application brought by David Rowntree – the drummer from Blur – has been refused. The judgment raises important and interesting points concerning the nature of competition collective proceedings and the need for the proposed class to be crafted such that its members possess individual claims under competition law.

Mr Rowntree sought to represent songwriter members of the Performing Right Society, which is a body which collects and distributes royalties relating to the public performance of musical works in respect of which it has been assigned the “performing rights”. PRS has both songwriter and publisher members. When PRS collects royalties, it is sometimes unable to distribute them to members owing to data problems. Mr Rowntree calls these “Black Box” royalties.

For the purposes of the CPO application, it was accepted that PRS typically pays these so-called Black Box royalties on a pro rata basis to all relevant members. Mr Rowntree alleged that this pro rata distribution unfairly favoured publishers over songwriters, in short because songwriters are more likely than publishers to have data problems.

PRS advanced three central objections to the claim. First, it applied to strike out/for reverse summary judgment on the claim. Second, it said that the proceedings should not be certified because of an absence of a credible methodology for assessing damages (such that the Microsoft test was not satisfied). Third, it said that the proceedings did not pass the cost-benefit test. PRS also pointed out that there was risk of conflict within the class (and between Mr Rowntree and the class) because of the absence of a clear counterfactual enabling the Tribunal to determine which songwriters would benefit from the claim’s success.

The Tribunal held that all three of PRS’s central objections succeeded. It struck out/granted reverse summary judgment on the claim on the basis that the proposed class should be crafted to consist of members with individual claims under competition law. Mr Rowntree failed to do this because songwriters as a class are not “owed” so-called Black Box royalties. It held that the Microsoft test was not satisfied, because Mr Rowntree and his expert could not explain how a counterfactual could be specified. And, since Mr Rowntree was seeking to represent a class of persons who were themselves members of PRS and other methods of resolving the dispute were available, the Tribunal considered that the cost-benefit test was not met. The risk of conflicts in the class was, however, thought to be speculative.

An application by Mr Rowntree to adjourn the CPO application in order for new solicitors to have time to prepare amendments to the application was also refused.

The judgment is here.