<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Courts and Tribunals Judiciary</provider_name><provider_url>https://www.judiciary.uk</provider_url><title>Hipgnosis Songs Fund Holdings (SFH 1) Limited (appellant) v Manilow &amp; others (respondents) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="oxPj8nI0FP"&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/live-hearings/hipgnosis-songs-fund-holdings-sfh-1-limited-appellant-v-manilow-others-respondents/"&gt;Hipgnosis Songs Fund Holdings (SFH 1) Limited (appellant) v Manilow &amp; others (respondents)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://www.judiciary.uk/live-hearings/hipgnosis-songs-fund-holdings-sfh-1-limited-appellant-v-manilow-others-respondents/embed/#?secret=oxPj8nI0FP" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Hipgnosis Songs Fund Holdings (SFH 1) Limited (appellant) v Manilow &amp; others (respondents)&#x201D; &#x2014; Courts and Tribunals Judiciary" data-secret="oxPj8nI0FP" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>Friday 11 April 2025 By Appellant&#x2019;s Notice filed on 3 March 2025, the Claimant below appeals the order of Marcus Smith J dated 27 February 2025 in which he ordered that the claim for declarations in relation to the additional purchase price be stayed. The background to these proceedings and those in California, is a [&hellip;]</description></oembed>
