Notarial power of attorney and copyright infringement principles confirmed; authorised agent may sue, and proven infringement supports injunction and damages.

A power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a notary public is presumed duly executed, and a holder of a general power of attorney may act as a recognised agent for the plaintiffs. A plaint signed by such an authorised agent and verified by a person acquainted with the facts satisfies the procedural requirements for corporate pleadings. On the merits, copyright infringement was established by direct and corroborative evidence of relay on the defendants' premises on the relevant date, and the absence of proof of innocent infringement did not excuse liability. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to injunctive relief, damages, and costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the power of attorney authorising the suit was duly executed; (ii) whether the attorney was a recognised agent competent to act for the plaintiffs; (iii) whether the plaint was properly signed and verified; (iv) whether the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright on the relevant date; and (v) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

Issue (i): whether the power of attorney authorising the suit was duly executed.

Analysis: A power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a notary public attracts the statutory presumption of due execution. The notarial certificate, together with the seal and execution shown on the document, was sufficient to establish proper execution.

Conclusion: The power of attorney was duly executed.

Issue (ii): whether the attorney was a recognised agent competent to act for the plaintiffs.

Analysis: The procedural rules permit a party to act through a recognised agent, and a person holding a general power of attorney falls within that category. An attorney of the High Court is not restricted to a special power of attorney alone and may act under a general power of attorney as well.

Conclusion: The attorney was a recognised agent competent to act for the plaintiffs.

Issue (iii): whether the plaint was properly signed and verified.

Analysis: The rule relating to corporate pleadings is permissive and does not exclude the general rules governing signing and verification of pleadings. Since the plaint was signed by a duly authorised recognised agent and verified by a person acquainted with the facts, the pleading satisfied the procedural requirements.

Conclusion: The plaint was properly signed and verified.

Issue (iv): whether the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright on the relevant date.

Analysis: The plaintiffs bore the burden of proving infringement and adduced direct evidence of the musical work being relayed on the defendants' premises on the relevant date. That evidence was supported by contemporaneous notes and broadcast records, while the defence version was disbelieved. The absence of proof of innocent infringement did not assist the defendants.

Conclusion: The defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright.

Issue (v): whether the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

Analysis: Where infringement is established, and innocent infringement is not proved, the plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and damages. The statutory limitation on remedies for innocent infringement was not attracted on the facts found.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction and damages.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded on all material issues, the plaintiffs established copyright infringement, and the Court granted preventive and monetary relief with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a notary public is presumed duly executed, a duly authorised attorney may act under a general power of attorney, and once copyright infringement is proved the infringer is liable to injunction and damages unless innocent infringement is established.

---