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

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

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 for the appellant

Lai Tze Chang Stanley Counsel for the appellant

Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David Counsel for the respondent

Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai Counsel for the respondent

Moh Huixian Estelle Counsel for the respondent

Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy Counsel for the appellant Samuel Soo Kuok Heng Counsel for the respondent

Tan Lin Yin Gladys Counsel for the respondent

Yong Wei Jun Jonathan Counsel for the 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.

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