Travails of the War Horse orchestra

23 April 2014 by

War-HorseAshworth and others v the Royal National Theatre [2014] 1176 – read judgment

Anyone who saw one of the early performances of War Horse in its first season at the National Theatre will remember how profoundly moving was the live music, with the musicians visible along the sides of the theatre above the stage.  Since that highly successful (and profitable) first season the role of the orchestra had been radically reduced, and now looks as if it is about to vanish altogether.

Background

War Horse opened at the Olivier Theatre in 2007, but since 2009 it has played at the New London Theatre. The claimants were engaged in March 2009 to play their instruments in the new production,  as a small company of wind players accompanying recorded music.  Productions of War Horse in other parts of the world have relied wholly on recorded music. In light of that, and because both the co-director of War Horse and the composer concluded that it was better for accuracy and impact to deliver the score through recorded music. The National Theatre sent the claimants letters giving notice of termination of their contracts to expire on 15 March 2014. In the letters the National Theatre stated that the grounds were redundancy.

The dispute

The claimants sought an order from the court, prior to the trial of the main action, to require the National Theatre to continue to engage them in the production of War Horse until the trial of their claim. They also relied upon the right to artistic expression protected by Article 10 of the human rights Convention.

With the backing of the Musicians’ Union, the claimants contended that this termination of their contracts with the move to recorded music would be in breach of the collective agreement between the Society of London Theatres and the MU.

The new cast of the production had rehearsed at all times without musicians and had no experience of a production with live music. But the contract between the musicians did not cover what the National Theatre was purporting to do. There has never been a case where a producer under this collective agreement has terminated a musician’s contract, without the musician’s agreement, for any reason other than illness or old age, disciplinary action or the closure of the production.

The National Theatre argued that since it had abandoned its orchestra for the play, the claimants’ engagement was at an end, since the NT had the right to terminate which was implicit in the purpose of the engagement or on the basis that the contract was discharged by performance.

The difficulty with this submission, Cranston J pointed out, was that it enabled the National Theatre to “abolish its orchestra overnight” to avoid the specific provisions of termination by notice set out in the claimants’ contracts.

But the NT contended that it was not a commercial sensible outcome that the claimants should have a continuing right to be paid in circumstances where there was no longer any need for an orchestra and so no longer a part for them to contribute to the play. However, neither this, nor the arguments based on implied terms of the contract, was enough to convince the judge that the plain words of the contract should be overridden. There was, in his view, a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the NT was contractually entitled to terminate their contracts in the way they did.

However, the remedy the musicians sought in this application was not available to them. They were seeking, in effect, an order for specific performance, or a negative injunction preventing the NT from breaching the contracts. The practical effect of both would be to require their reengagement.

Reasoning behind the judgment

Specific performance in these circumstances is notoriously difficult:

as a rule of thumb that a court will not order specific performance of a contract calling for personal service where trust and confidence has broken down, a continued relationship is unworkable for some other reason, or constant supervision by the court might be required.

The musicians sought to overcome this traditional reluctance by pointing out that there had been no criticism of their professional integrity or honesty; that continuing to perform with the cast needed no more radical adjustment than a few more rehearsals to get the cast used to working with musicians, and that there could be no issue of continuous supervision by the court since the parties have operated under these contracts for more than 5 years and done so without any difficulty.

But Cranston J was not at all persuaded that specific performance or a mandatory injunction would be granted at the full trial of the case, which was not “exceptional”.  It was a “standard case where on a traditional analysis, loss of confidence was the primary block to this type of relief”:

Loss of confidence is fact specific. A role in War Horse is miles away from the impersonal organisation referred to by Lord Wilson in Geys v Société Générale[2013] 1 A.C. 523 and from the situation in Powell v Brent LBC [1988] ICR 176, where the employee had been performing the superior role, and had the confidence of her superior. The plain fact is that the production of a play necessarily entails close cooperation between all those involved, the actors and those directing and producing the play.

In the judge’s view, the claimants’ prospects at trial for breach of contract by the National Theatre were strong, but that an award of damages to them at trial would be adequate compensation. They had not persuaded him of the case to order interim relief pending trial, to reinstate a live band in the production of War Horse and to engage each of them as part of it. As far as the claim under  Article 10  was concerned, the right to artistic expression had to be considered in relation to the defendants as well.  Significant in the balance against interim relief was the interference with artistic expression in requiring the National Theatre to reintegrate a band into the production. Sections 12(1) and 12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the judge to have particular regard to this aspect of the relief sought by the claimants.

Comment

The National Theatre’s artistic judgment was that a live band did not provide the “same quality and impact of performance as can be produced through the use of recorded music and professional actors.”  It is sad that those responsible for the continuing performances of this tremendous play have seen fit to decide, on the audience’s behalf, that live musicians cannot contribute positively to the play and that the play is better off without them.  But theatres, like anyone else, have profit margins to attend to and it is obvious that War Horse, an expensive play to cast with its 36 actors and, until recently, the five claimant musicians. The move to recorded music only has no doubt produced financial benefits for the defendants.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

4 comments


  1. JUSTIN PEARSON says:

    Saving money? it would probably cost the NT about 13 seats per show to pay all the musicians. The New London Theatre capacity is just over 1,000.
    They have a contract with the musicians and should honour this. What is a contract signed for at the end of the day if it is not honoured by management?

  2. David says:

    By that logic it would surely be better to show the film but still charge £62.50 a ticket. This is an absolute disgrace.

  3. Edward green says:

    How come it took them years to realise it’d be better with recorded music? Where was the creative judgment in those years?

  4. James Keane says:

    >> It is sad that those responsible for the continuing performances of this tremendous play have seen fit to decide, on the audience’s behalf, that live musicians cannot contribute positively to the play and that the play is better off without them. <<

    You could be forgiven for thinking the producers have an ulterior motive, but if both the co-director and composer have also concluded – for reasons of accuracy and impact on the audience – that it's in the audience's best interests, why are you not trusting their creative judgement?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: