GENERAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD & Anor v THE WAVE STUDIO PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(A) 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Copyright Act (Cap 63). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC(A) 11 High Court (Appellate Division) 4 April 2023 AD/CA 12/2022 · AD/CA 46/2022 49 min read

19 cases cited (18 SG, 1 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	4 April 2023
Judges	Aedit Abdullah, Steven Chong, Woo Bih Li
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, David Llewelyn & Co LLC, Drew & Napier LLC, Edmond Lim Tian Zhong, Lai Tze Chang Stanley, Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David, Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Moh Huixian Estelle, Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy, Samuel Soo Kuok Heng, Tan Lin Yin Gladys, Yong Wei Jun Jonathan

Source: [2023] SGHC(A) 11, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 4 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Offer to settle Intellectual Property — Copyright — Licenses Intellectual Property — Copyright — Ownership

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Intellectual Property

Judges (3)

Aedit Abdullah Coram Steven Chong Delivered Woo Bih Li Coram

Counsel (12)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm David Llewelyn & Co LLC Firm Drew & Napier LLC Firm Edmond Lim Tian Zhong Counsel Appellant Lai Tze Chang Stanley Counsel Appellant Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David Counsel Respondent Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai Counsel Respondent Moh Huixian Estelle Counsel Respondent Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy Counsel Appellant Samuel Soo Kuok Heng Counsel Respondent Tan Lin Yin Gladys Counsel Respondent Yong Wei Jun Jonathan Counsel Respondent

Parties (5)

General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd Appellant General Hotel Management, Ltd Appellant The Wave Studio Pte Ltd Respondent The Wave Studio, LLC Respondent Lee Kar Yin Respondent

Case Significance

General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another v The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC(A) 11 was decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court (Steven Chong JCA, Woo Bih Li JAD and Aedit Abdullah J) on 4 April 2023 in Civil Appeal Nos 12 and 46 of 2022. The appeals challenged a General Division decision delivered on 16 June 2022, reported as [2022] SGHC 142. AD 12 concerned the proper interpretation of a provision of the Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) on commissioned photographs, framing the question of who owns copyright when a client engages a company for a photoshoot, and s 30(2)'s default position, alongside issues of copyright licenses and an offer to settle.

[2023] SGHC(A) 11 explained

GENERAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD & Anor v THE WAVE STUDIO PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC(A) 11) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 4 April 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Intellectual Property. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC(A) 11 about?

GENERAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD & Anor v THE WAVE STUDIO PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC(A) 11) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Offer to settle”, “Intellectual Property — Copyright — Licenses”, and “Intellectual Property — Copyright — Ownership”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC(A) 11 consider?

The judgment refers to Copyright Act (Cap 63). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What did General Hotel Management v The Wave Studio [2023] SGHC(A) 11 concern?

The Appellate Division appeals (AD 12 and AD 46 of 2022) challenged a General Division decision of 16 June 2022, reported as [2022] SGHC 142. AD 12 concerned interpreting the Copyright Act on commissioned photographs — who owns copyright when a client engages a company for a photoshoot.

Which Copyright Act provision was in issue in [2023] SGHC(A) 11?

AD 12 turned on s 30(2) of the Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed), which sets the default position on copyright ownership in commissioned photographs. The appeals, heard by Steven Chong JCA, Woo Bih Li JAD and Aedit Abdullah J, also raised copyright licenses and an offer to settle.

Statutes Cited

s 119(2)(a) s 120 s 120A s 18 s 197(6) s 30 s 30(2) s 30(3) s 30(5) s 7

Cases Cited (19)

SG (1)

[2022] SGHC 142

SLR (17)

[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 556 [2004] 3 SLR(R) 267 [2006] 1 SLR 484 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 230 [2009] 2 SLR(R) 20 [2011] 3 SLR 903 [2013] 4 SLR 193 [2015] 2 SLR 470 [2015] 4 SLR 41 [2017] 2 SLR 786 [2017] 2 SLR 850 [2018] 1 SLR 76 [2018] 2 SLR 1043 [2020] 2 SLR 744 [2021] 1 SLR 1135 [2022] 2 SLR 1066

UK (1)

[2005] EWCA Civ 11