Microsoft v SM Summit: Jurisdiction, Criminal Procedure Code & Implied Undertaking

Microsoft Corp, Adobe Systems Inc, Autodesk Inc, Ronald Eckstrom, Business Software Alliance, Stuart Ong, and Lee Cross (collectively, the appellants) appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss their applications to vary a prior order and release an implied undertaking related to search warrants executed against SM Summit Holdings and Summit CD Manufacture Pte Ltd (the respondents). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals against the High Court's decisions made in its revisionary or original criminal jurisdiction.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals regarding the High Court's refusal to vary an order and release an implied undertaking. The key issue was whether the court had jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SM Summit Holdings LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Summit CD Manufacture Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Adobe Systems IncAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Autodesk IncAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Business Software AllianceAppellantAssociationAppeal DismissedLost
Stuart OngAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lee CrossAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Ronald EckstromAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Microsoft CorpAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
Tan Lee MengJudgeNo
L P TheanJustice of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Engelin TehEngelin Teh & Partners
Manjit SinghManjit Samuel & Partners
Thomas SimEngelin Teh & Partners
Govin MenonManjit Samuel & Partners
Lionel TanRajah & Tann
V K RajahRajah & Tann
Tan Chee MengHarry Elias Partnership
Harry EliasHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. BSA obtained search warrants to search Summit Holdings' premises for copyright and trademark offences.
  2. A raid was conducted on Summit Holdings' premises, and documents and CD-ROMs were seized.
  3. The appellants held a press conference and published a press release after the raid.
  4. Summit Holdings instituted proceedings to quash the search warrants.
  5. BSA applied for permission to make copies of documents.
  6. The Chief Justice quashed the third warrant but directed the first two warrants to stand.
  7. Summit Holdings commenced a suit claiming defamation based on the press release.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Microsoft Corp and Others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and Another (No 2), Cr App 25 /1999, 26/1999, [2000] SGCA 12

6. Timeline

DateEvent
BSA applied for and were granted two search warrants
Raid carried out on the premises of Summit Holdings
BSA applied for and were granted a third search warrant by GP Selvam J
Appellants held a press conference at the premises of Summit Holdings
Press release published
Chief Justice made orders in respect of the criminal revision
Grounds of judgment handed down
Respondents commenced Suit 1323/98
Chief Justice found BSA guilty of contempt and fined BSA for $5,000
Chief Justice further clarified the order he made on 29 September 1997
Applications heard before the Chief Justice
Appeals dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeals.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders by the High Court in the exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction
      • Whether orders by the High Court were made in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction
  2. Implied Undertaking
    • Outcome: The court determined that the refusal to release or vary the implied undertaking was not an order made in exercise of the original criminal jurisdiction of the High Court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Release from or variation of the implied undertaking in respect of documents and information obtained pursuant to the execution of the search warrants

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Variation of order made on 29 September 1997
  2. Release from or variation of the implied undertaking

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Appeals
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Technology
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor v PP and another actionHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR 922SingaporeCited for the orders made in respect of the criminal revision and the quashing of the third warrant.
Mohamed Razip & Ors v PPCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1987] 2 SLR 142SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no general right of appeal from a judgment or order of a criminal court except such as provided by law.
Abdullah bin A Rahman v PPCourt of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR 129SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of legislation and its jurisdiction must necessarily be defined solely by and limited to the provisions of the legislation creating it.
Wong Hong Toy & Anor v PPCourt of Criminal AppealYes[1984-1985] SLR 298SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'original criminal jurisdiction' in the context of appeals.
Ang Cheng Hai & Ors v PP and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1995] SLR 201SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'original jurisdiction' as referring to original trial jurisdiction.
Microsoft Corporation & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1999] 4 SLR 529SingaporeCited for the court's holding that the order made on 29 September 1997 prohibited the use of all documents and copies thereof obtained pursuant to the search warrants and information extracted from such documents or copies and that there was an implied undertaking in criminal proceedings analogous to that arising on discovery in civil proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation & Ors v SM Summit Holdings Ltd & AnorHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR 343SingaporeCited for the High Court's decision that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the court would exercise its discretion to grant such applications and that the appellants had not shown any cogent and persuasive reasons as to why the applications should be allowed.
Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor v Business Software AllianceHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR 197SingaporeCited for the learned Chief Justice's clarification of the order he made on 29 September 1997.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed)Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Search warrant
  • Criminal revision
  • Implied undertaking
  • Original criminal jurisdiction
  • Revisionary jurisdiction
  • Press release
  • Defamation
  • Copyright infringement
  • Trademark infringement

15.2 Keywords

  • Jurisdiction
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Implied Undertaking
  • Search Warrants
  • Court of Appeal
  • High Court
  • Criminal Jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Search Warrants80
Criminal Procedure70
Implied Undertaking70
Evidence Law60
Litigation50
Copyrights40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Jurisdiction