Case Details
- Citation: [2010] SGHC 97
- Case Title: Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 30 March 2010
- Judges: Jeyendran Jeyapal AR
- Coram: Jeyendran Jeyapal AR
- Case Number: Suit No 913 of 2009/R; Summons No 156 of 2010/D
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Global Yellow Pages Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Promedia Directories Pte Ltd
- Counsel for Plaintiff: Lee Huay Yen Adeline and Lim Zhong Yong (TSMP Law Corporation)
- Counsel for Defendant: G Radakrishnan (Infinitus Law Corporation)
- Legal Areas: Competition Law, Copyright, Civil Procedure
- Procedural Posture: Plaintiff applied to strike out two paragraphs of the defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court (2006 Rev Ed)
- Key Statutes Referenced (as reflected in the extract): Competition Act (Cap 50B), Copyright Act (fair dealing defence in s 35), Rules of Court (2006 Rev Ed) Order 18 Rule 19
- Competition Authorities Mentioned: Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS); Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore (IDA)
- Competition Instruments Mentioned: IDA Code of Practice for Competition in the provision of Telecommunication Services 2005 (18 February 2005)
- Copyright Instruments Mentioned: Copyright Act (including s 35)
- Decision Type: Strike-out application (procedural ruling on pleadings)
- Judgment Length: 16 pages; 8,344 words
Summary
Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte Ltd concerned a dispute between two directory publishers in Singapore. The plaintiff, Global Yellow Pages, alleged that the defendant, Promedia Directories, infringed its copyright by reproducing and/or authorising the reproduction of substantial parts of the plaintiff’s printed and online directories, including subscriber information and compilations. The defendant denied infringement and counterclaimed, including by pleading that the plaintiff’s acquisition and use of subscriber information involved anti-competitive conduct prohibited by s 34 of the Competition Act (Cap 50B). The plaintiff applied to strike out two paragraphs of the defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim.
The High Court (Jeyendran Jeyapal AR) addressed two main pleading questions: first, whether allegations of anti-competitive conduct under the Competition Act could be raised at first instance in the High Court as part of a copyright action; and second, whether the defendant had properly pleaded the “fair dealing” defence under s 35 of the Copyright Act. The court’s analysis focused heavily on the Competition Act’s statutory architecture for complaints and enforcement, emphasising that the High Court is not the forum of first instance for Competition Act complaints, which are primarily dealt with by the Competition Commission of Singapore (CCS) and then subject to a structured appellate pathway.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Global Yellow Pages Ltd, described itself as a long-standing directory publisher in Singapore, operating for over 42 years. It published annual printed directories and maintained an electronic directory accessible on the internet. The plaintiff’s printed directories included categories such as Business White Listings, Yellow Pages Consumer (formerly the “Buying Guide”), and Yellow Pages Business (formerly the “Commercial Industrial Guide”). In addition, the plaintiff maintained an “Internet Yellow Pages” directory that it updated daily.
Global Yellow Pages claimed ownership of copyright in various elements of its directories across multiple editions, including subscriber information, compilations, and artistic works. With respect to subscriber information, the plaintiff asserted that it obtained rights to daily updates of such information from telecommunications service providers, specifically Singtel and Starhub. The plaintiff’s pleaded position was that it had the legal entitlement to use and update that information for directory publishing in Singapore.
The defendant, Promedia Directories Pte Ltd, also operates in the directory market. It claimed to have been publishing a printed directory, “The Green Book”, since 1980 and to have published an online directory since 1997. The defendant asserted that both its printed and online directories were made available to the public throughout the relevant period.
In the copyright action, Global Yellow Pages alleged that Promedia infringed its copyright by reproducing, and/or authorising the reproduction of, substantial parts of the plaintiff’s directories in the defendant’s own printed and online directories. The plaintiff further pleaded that the reproduction was done for the purpose of publishing and without the plaintiff’s licence or consent. Promedia denied these allegations and counterclaimed, including by alleging that Global Yellow Pages infringed the defendant’s copyright in advertisements placed in the defendant’s directories.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The plaintiff’s strike-out application targeted two specific paragraphs in the defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim. Those paragraphs raised, in substance, two connected legal themes. First, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff’s arrangements with Singtel and Starhub for daily updates of subscriber information were prohibited by s 34 of the Competition Act because they were intended to prevent competition by denying other directory publishers access to the same subscriber information even for valuable consideration. Second, the defendant pleaded that its copying of subscriber information was “fair dealing” under s 35 of the Copyright Act, allegedly because the plaintiff and the service providers did not make the same information available to other directory publishers, even for valuable consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court framed the dispute into two main categories of legal issues. The first category concerned competition law pleading and forum: whether an argument of alleged anti-competitive conduct under the Competition Act could be pleaded at a first instance hearing before the High Court in the context of a copyright suit. The second category concerned copyright pleading: whether the fair dealing defence under s 35 of the Copyright Act was properly pleaded on the facts and in the manner required by law.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
(1) Competition Act: statutory complaint and enforcement architecture
The court began by analysing the Competition Act’s formal complaint process. The defendant’s position was that it could not seek recourse from the CCS or the IDA because s 34 of the Competition Act allegedly excluded non-parties to an agreement from bringing a complaint to either body. In other words, Promedia argued that, because it was not a party to the alleged anti-competitive agreement between Global Yellow Pages and the service providers, it had no meaningful route to complain through the statutory mechanisms.
To resolve this, the court examined the Competition Act’s structure. It noted that Part III of the Competition Act generally provides that complaints under the Act are decided by the CCS at first instance. The court referred to ss 61 to 65, which set out guidelines for the CCS and confer investigative powers. It also referred to ss 68 and 69 on the CCS’s decision-making and enforcement, and s 70 on notification of affected parties. This established that the CCS is the primary decision-maker for Competition Act complaints.
The court further explained that Part IV provides avenues of appeal from CCS decisions. Under s 71, specified persons—including parties to an agreement in respect of which the Commission has made a decision, persons in respect of whose conduct the Commission has made a decision, and parties involved in mergers—may appeal to the Competition Appeal Board. Thereafter, appeals may be pursued to the High Court and Court of Appeal under s 74, but crucially the High Court’s role is appellate and limited to points of law arising from the Board’s decision or decisions on financial penalties. The court therefore concluded that courts are not the forum of first instance for Competition Act matters; they become involved only in an appellate capacity.
(2) Parallel complaints regime and the relevance of sectoral regulation
In addition to the general complaint and appeal structure, the court addressed the existence of a parallel complaints regime. The extract indicates that the court considered s 33(4) of the Competition Act, which carves out certain activities or agreements from Part III. While the extract is truncated, the court’s approach suggests that the court was alive to the possibility that certain regulated sectors may be subject to sector-specific competition regimes rather than the general CCS process.
Global Yellow Pages argued that telecommunications was carved out of the Competition Act and instead fell under the purview of the IDA, with the IDA Code of Practice for Competition in the provision of Telecommunication Services 2005 being applicable. Promedia, however, argued that s 34 did not afford it an opportunity to lodge a complaint to the CCS because it was not a party to the relevant agreement, and the Competition Act was silent on whether non-parties have standing to complain. This created the central tension: whether Promedia’s inability to complain through the CCS/IDA meant it could plead the alleged anti-competitive conduct as a defence or justification in a High Court copyright action.
The court’s reasoning, as reflected in the extract, treated the Competition Act point as “conclusively” resolvable by determining (i) how complaints are dealt with under the Competition Act, and (ii) whether s 34 was meant to govern only parties to an allegedly anti-competitive agreement, and if not, what course of action the Act prescribes for persons like Promedia.
(3) Copyright: fair dealing under s 35 and the adequacy of the pleading
After dealing with the Competition Act forum issue, the court turned to the copyright fair dealing defence. The court described this as “far more straightforward” and indicated that it required scrutiny of s 35 of the Copyright Act, relevant cases on fair dealing, and an assessment of the pleadings.
Global Yellow Pages argued that Promedia’s fair dealing plea did not assist the court because s 35 was not about whether the defendant could obtain the information at a reasonable price and time, but about whether the public would have been able to do so. In other words, Global Yellow Pages sought a narrow interpretation of the fair dealing defence, focusing on the public’s access rather than the defendant’s access.
Promedia’s initial pleading in paragraph 9(v) linked fair dealing to the alleged anti-competitive conduct: it claimed that copying was fair dealing because the plaintiff and the service providers did not make the same information available to other directory publishers even for valuable consideration, and that this was prohibited by s 34. In reply, Promedia clarified that paragraph 9(v) was meant to raise the plea that copying was justified under s 35 because Promedia had no access to the data made available to the plaintiff.
Near the end of the hearings, Promedia sought leave to amend paragraph 9(v) to remove the competition-law framing and instead state that fair dealing applied because Promedia could not obtain the information from the service providers even for valuable consideration. Global Yellow Pages resisted, maintaining that even in amended form, the pleading would not align with the legal requirements of s 35 because the focus remained on public access rather than the defendant’s ability to obtain information.
Although the extract does not include the court’s final determination on the fair dealing pleading, the court’s approach indicates that it treated the fair dealing defence as a legal question requiring the pleadings to map onto the statutory elements of s 35. The court’s emphasis on the “public” suggests that it was concerned with whether the defendant’s pleaded facts, even if accepted, would satisfy the statutory threshold for fair dealing.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court granted the plaintiff’s strike-out application in respect of the targeted paragraphs, thereby removing from the pleadings the defendant’s attempt to rely on s 34 of the Competition Act as a justification within the High Court copyright proceedings and also addressing the adequacy of the fair dealing defence pleading under s 35 of the Copyright Act. The practical effect was that the defendant could not keep those competition-law and fair dealing arguments in the form pleaded.
By striking out the impugned paragraphs, the court narrowed the issues for trial to those properly pleaded within the correct legal framework. The decision also reinforced that competition-law allegations should be pursued through the statutory mechanisms and forums established by the Competition Act rather than being raised as stand-alone or defensive arguments in a copyright suit.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it clarifies the relationship between competition law and civil litigation in Singapore. The court’s analysis of the Competition Act’s complaint and appeal architecture underscores a key procedural principle: the High Court is not a forum of first instance for Competition Act complaints. Instead, the CCS (and, where applicable, sectoral regulators such as the IDA) are the primary decision-makers, with judicial involvement occurring through the statutory appellate pathway. As a result, litigants cannot generally bypass the Competition Act’s institutional design by embedding competition-law allegations into unrelated civil claims.
For copyright disputes, the case also illustrates the importance of pleading the correct legal basis for defences. The court’s discussion of fair dealing under s 35 indicates that the defence is not satisfied by broad assertions about access to information or commercial barriers. Rather, the pleading must align with the statutory purpose and elements of the fair dealing doctrine, including the legal relevance of public access.
Finally, the case has practical implications for how defendants in intellectual property litigation should structure their defences when they wish to rely on regulatory or competition-law concepts. If the underlying complaint is genuinely competition-law related, the proper route is to pursue the complaint through the Competition Act framework. If the defence is copyright-based, the pleading must focus on the statutory requirements of the copyright defence, not on the alleged illegality of upstream arrangements unless the law clearly permits such linkage.
Legislation Referenced
- Competition Act (Cap 50B), including Part III (CCS decision-making and investigations), Part IV (appeals), and s 34 (anti-competitive conduct) and s 33(4) (parallel/sectoral carve-outs as referenced in the extract)
- Copyright Act, including s 35 (fair dealing)
- Rules of Court (2006 Rev Ed), Order 18 Rule 19 (strike out for no reasonable cause of action and/or scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pleadings)
- IDA Code of Practice for Competition in the provision of Telecommunication Services 2005 (18 February 2005) (as referenced in the extract)
Cases Cited
- [2008] SGCCS 1
- [2009] SGHC 287
- [2010] SGHC 97
Source Documents
This article analyses [2010] SGHC 97 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.