Case Details
- Citation: [2020] SGCRT 1
- Court: Intellectual Property Office of Singapore
- Date: 2020-01-15
- Judges: Edwin San, Lee Ai Ming, Low Chai Chong
- Plaintiff/Applicant: SingNet Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd
- Legal Areas: Copyright — Reference of question of law to the High Court
- Statutes Referenced: Copyright Act, Copyright Act (Cap. 63), Designs and Patents Act 1988, UK Copyright Act
- Cases Cited: [1993] SGCRT 1, [2020] SGCRT 1
- Judgment Length: 6 pages, 3,584 words
Summary
This case involves a dispute between SingNet Pte Ltd, a pay television service provider, and the Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd (Compass), a collecting society that administers the public performance, broadcast, diffusion and reproduction rights in musical works. SingNet filed an application with the Copyright Tribunal seeking an order that the charges demanded by Compass for a license to use its repertoire of musical works are unreasonable and arbitrary. Compass opposed the application and also filed a separate copyright infringement lawsuit against SingNet. The key issue before the Copyright Tribunal was whether it has the power to grant a retrospective order that would apply from April 2013 until the date of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal ultimately decided to refer this question of law to the High Court for determination.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Compass is a company limited by guarantee that administers the public performance, broadcast, diffusion and reproduction rights in musical works on behalf of its members. It operates a License Scheme for Pay Television Service in Singapore, under which a license would be offered on a yearly basis (calculated from 1 April to 31 March annually).
SingNet is a subsidiary of Singapore Telecommunications Limited and provides television cable services, including a pay TV service formerly known as "MioTV" and now known as Singtel TV Pay TV service. On 31 January 2019, SingNet filed an application to the Copyright Tribunal under section 163(2) of the Copyright Act, seeking orders that the charges demanded by Compass are unreasonable and arbitrary, that the charges should be based only on the content that utilizes Compass's works, and that the Tribunal fix a reasonable sum and tariff rate for the charges.
Compass denied that its charges, terms and conditions are unreasonable, and contended that since 1 April 2013, SingNet had been screening movies, shows and programs on its television channels that featured musical works owned by Compass's members, without making any application to the Tribunal during that period. Compass subsequently commenced a copyright infringement lawsuit against SingNet for the period from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2019.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue before the Copyright Tribunal was whether it has the power under the Copyright Act to grant a retrospective order that would apply from 1 April 2013 until the date of the Tribunal's order in the proceedings initiated by SingNet's application on 31 January 2019. This question of law arose because Compass contended that SingNet had been using its members' musical works without a license since 1 April 2013, while SingNet's application only covered the period from the date of its filing.
The parties had also identified other factual issues to be determined by the Tribunal, such as how Compass determines its tariff rates, whether those rates are reasonable, and whether the tariff structure properly accounts for the varying uses of music across different television content.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Copyright Tribunal noted that section 169(1) of the Copyright Act provides that the Tribunal may, on its own motion or at the request of a party, refer a question of law arising in the proceedings to the High Court for determination. The Tribunal has discretion in deciding whether to make such a reference.
Compass argued that referring the question of law to the High Court at this stage would lead to savings in time and cost, as it would allow the Tribunal to streamline the issues to be heard and enhance the efficiency of the proceedings. Compass also submitted that a determination by the High Court on the Tribunal's jurisdiction would benefit the Tribunal in knowing the precise ambit of its powers.
SingNet objected to the reference, contending that the Tribunal has full power and jurisdiction to determine the question itself, and that a reference would delay the proceedings and incur unnecessary costs. SingNet also argued that policy reasons support the Tribunal deciding the issue, and that the High Court would benefit from the Tribunal's decision and reasoning if a reference is ultimately made.
After considering the detailed submissions from both parties, the Tribunal decided to exercise its discretion and grant Compass's application to refer the question of law to the High Court. The Tribunal found that the determination of the question by the High Court would provide clarity on the Tribunal's jurisdiction, which would in turn assist in the efficient resolution of the overall dispute.
What Was the Outcome?
The Copyright Tribunal granted Compass's application to refer the question of law to the High Court. The specific question referred was:
"Whether the Copyright Tribunal under section 163(2), read with section 163(6)(b), of the Copyright Act (Cap. 63) ("the Act"), has the power to grant a retrospective order, specifically, an order that applies for the period 1 April 2013, up until the date of the order of the Copyright Tribunal in CT 1/2019 in the application made pursuant to section 163(2) of the Act, by the Applicant SingNet Pte Ltd, on 31 January 2019."
The Tribunal's decision to refer this question to the High Court effectively puts the main proceedings before the Tribunal on hold until the High Court has determined the issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant a retrospective order.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant as it addresses the scope of the Copyright Tribunal's powers under the Copyright Act. The key question referred to the High Court goes to the heart of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and its ability to grant orders with retrospective effect.
The outcome of the High Court's determination on this issue will have important practical implications. If the High Court finds that the Tribunal does have the power to grant retrospective orders, it could significantly impact the resolution of copyright licensing disputes, as it would allow the Tribunal to address alleged unlicensed use of works dating back several years. Conversely, if the High Court rules that the Tribunal lacks such power, it may limit the Tribunal's ability to provide comprehensive relief in cases where a licensee has been using works without authorization for an extended period.
More broadly, this case highlights the interplay between the specialized Copyright Tribunal and the general jurisdiction of the High Court in resolving complex copyright issues. The referral of a question of law to the High Court demonstrates the Tribunal's willingness to seek higher-level guidance on the scope of its own powers, which can contribute to the development of coherent copyright jurisprudence in Singapore.
Legislation Referenced
- Copyright Act (Cap. 63)
- Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK)
- Copyright Act 1956 (UK)
- Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK)
Cases Cited
- [1993] SGCRT 1
- [2020] SGCRT 1
Source Documents
This article analyses [2020] SGCRT 1 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.