TIGER PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT LTD v ENCORE FILMS PTE LTD

Facts

Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd, a company incorporated in the People's Republic of China, held an exclusive licence from the copyright owner Kaixin Mahua over the distribution, reproduction and publicity rights to the Chinese film "Moon Man" outside China and Korea. Encore Films Pte Ltd, a Singapore film distributor, negotiated with Tiger's president over WeChat and e-mail in August and September 2022 for distribution of the film in Singapore. Drafts of a distribution agreement were exchanged but no written agreement was signed. Encore took the position that a binding contract had already been formed and released the film for general screening in Singapore on 15 September 2022.

Tiger sued in Originating Claim No 466 of 2022 for copyright infringement, saying the exchanges were only negotiations subject to a written contract. Encore denied infringement and counterclaimed for groundless threats and for alleged infringement of its rights in an earlier film, "Hi! Mom". Tiger elected the simplified process under Part 2 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Intellectual Property) Rules 2022 and abandoned any monetary claim above $500,000. Encore applied by Summons No 926 of 2023 for an order that the simplified process should not apply. As the first case to invoke the process, the judge gave full grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the monetary relief claimed by each party was likely to stay within $500,000.
2. Whether the defendant had standing to counterclaim as exclusive licensee of the earlier film.
3. Whether the complexity of the issues, trial length and quantum made the case suitable for the simplified process.

Holding

The High Court dismissed Encore's application, declined to order that the simplified process did not apply, directed that the claim proceed under Part 2 of the rules, and made no order for costs at that stage under r 9(2).

Reasoning

The court explained that the simplified process grew out of a 2016 review aimed at making intellectual property litigation affordable for smaller parties, with directions given at a single case conference and capped costs. Under r 4(1), three cumulative conditions apply: the dispute involves an intellectual property right, the monetary relief is unlikely to exceed $500,000 (or all parties agree), and the case is suitable having regard to affordability, complexity, whether trial would exceed two days and other matters. The first condition was plainly met.

On quantum, Tiger had abandoned any excess claim, and Encore had not particularised any loss on its counterclaims. Encore lacked standing on the "Hi! Mom" counterclaim, since under s 103 of the Copyright Act 2021 an exclusive licence must come from the owner or prospective owner, while Encore's licence came through Passion from Hong Kong Tiger. On the threats counterclaim, Encore went ahead with screening as planned, so no loss appeared.

On suitability, the court said complexity and trial length would usually be decisive. The claim turned on one question, whether the WeChat and e-mail exchanges formed a binding agreement. The proposed trade-custom expert would not help, because a custom about what is done after contracting cannot show whether a contract was made, and drafts were still being exchanged when the decryption key was sent. Tiger's sole witness would travel to Singapore, and the other witnesses' evidence was narrow. Tiger put the box office revenue at no less than $153,905.54, so normal-track costs would be out of proportion to the claim.

From the judgment