Senior Reporter
derek.achong@guardian.co.tt
Soca star Patrice Roberts has been ordered to pay US$25,104.12 in compensation to a Canadian entertainment company for services it provided while briefly managing her career.
High Court Judge Robin Mohammed ordered the compensation for Ontario-based Soca Bookings Incorporated yesterday as he partially upheld its breach of contract lawsuit against Roberts.
Justice Mohammed found that the company was entitled to US$35,472, which represents reasonable compensation for the management services it provided and cash advances made on Roberts’ behalf to help further her career, plus interest.
However, he found that it owed her US$10,367.88, which represents the proceeds of the digital sales of her music that it collected while managing her, plus interest.
He gave Roberts the option of setting off the compensation owed to her against what she is required to pay, meaning that she would just be required to pay the difference.
The lawsuit related to an oral contract, which both parties admitted they entered into following a meeting at the Trinidad Hilton Hotel in February 2015.
Both agreed that the company would provide artiste management services and that Roberts would pay a 20 per cent commission on her live performances, which earned her more than US$10,000 and 15 per cent on performances earning less than US$10,000.
They also agreed that the fees would only become payable after their joint business venture became profitable.
Roberts terminated the arrangement via email in June 2017.
The company claimed US$22,535 in management fees as well as US$23,900, which it claimed represents cash advances it made for recording sessions with international producers and for music videos.
Roberts denied any wrongdoing as she claimed that she did not owe the company when she ended their relationship. She also filed a counter-claim seeking her digital music sales.
In deciding the case, Justice Mohammed ruled that there was a valid contract between the parties, including the fee deferment until profitability clause.
He ruled that the company could not be automatically entitled to the fees claimed as the condition under the clause had not been met.
“The Claimant produced no evidence that the venture ever reached the threshold of profitability that would have triggered the obligation to pay management fees,” Justice Mohammed said.
Despite the finding, Justice Mohammed ruled that it was entitled to the payment as it represented reasonable fees for the services it provided to Roberts.
“The Court is satisfied that the Defendant freely accepted the Claimant’s management services throughout the contractual period with full knowledge that those services were not provided gratuitously and that remuneration was expected,” he said.
“She retained all financial benefits flowing from those services and, in those circumstances, cannot in equity be permitted to benefit from the Claimant’s work without compensating it for the reasonable value of the services it performed,” he added.
Justice Mohammed only partially upheld the company’s claim for cash advances it made for a trip to Los Angeles to record with a producer and meet key figures in the international music industry and a music video in Bequia.
He rejected its claim in relation to US$11,600 it claimed it expended for a music video filmed in Tobago with Jamaican artiste Busy Signal in 2016.
His decision was based on the company’s failure to provide receipts associated with the production.
Dealing with the digital music sales, Justice Mohammed noted that neither party provided evidence of the actual sums collected.
He decided on US$9,000, which was based on a figure referenced by the company’s Director of Operations, Ivan Berry.
As part of his judgment, Justice Mohammed suggested that the case highlighted the need for written contracts in the entertainment industry.
“The Court would encourage those entering into management arrangements of this kind, particularly within the creative industry where such informality is not uncommon, to give careful thought to the importance of a properly executed written agreement,” Justice Mohammed said.
He noted that such contracts should carefully define the scope of the manager’s entitlement in respect to each revenue stream, including digital sales, publishing royalties and endorsement income.
“The absence of such clarity, as this case illustrates, creates the precise conditions for the kind of dispute that has occupied this Court,” he said.
The company was represented by Tara Thompson, Gideon McMaster, and Joel Roper. Roberts was represented by Sterling John and Shelly Clarke.
