Alliance Entertainment v Sim Kay Teck: Striking Out, Res Judicata & Issue Estoppel in Copyright Infringement
In Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's claim for copyright infringement, arguing res judicata or issue estoppel based on a prior struck-out action (Suit 978). The court dismissed the striking-out application, holding that the prior decision lacked finality and did not determine the same question as the present action, as the initial striking out was due to a failure to establish a chain of title, not a determination on the merits of the copyright claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendants’ striking-out application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered whether a second copyright infringement action was barred by res judicata or issue estoppel after the first was struck out.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Won | Wong Siew Hong, Teh Ee-Von |
| Sim Kay Teck | Defendant | Individual | Striking-out application dismissed | Lost | Sarbjit Singh, Sarbrinder Singh |
| Dallas Entertainment Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Striking-out application dismissed | Lost | Sarbjit Singh, Sarbrinder Singh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Siew Hong | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Teh Ee-Von | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Sarbjit Singh | Kerta & Co |
| Sarbrinder Singh | Kerta & Co |
4. Facts
- Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd sued Sim Kay Teck and Dallas Entertainment Pte Ltd for copyright infringement.
- A previous action (Suit 978) on substantially the same issues was struck out.
- The previous action was struck out because Alliance failed to show a chain of title giving it the right to commence the action.
- The court commented that fresh proceedings could be instituted after the first action was struck out.
- Alliance commenced a fresh action (Suit 797 of 2005), which the defendants sought to strike out based on res judicata and issue estoppel.
- The pleadings in the present action appear to show a proper chain of title.
5. Formal Citations
- Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and Another, Suit 797/2005, SUM 84/2006, [2006] SGHC 124
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 978 of 2004 filed | |
| Hearing of Summons in Chambers No 3032 of 2005 | |
| Hearing of Summons in Chambers No 4130 of 2005 | |
| Suit No 797 of 2005 begun by Alliance | |
| Summons No 84 of 2006 filed | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that res judicata did not apply because there was no judicial determination on the merits of the cause of action in the prior suit.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1980] Ch 590
- [2005] 3 SLR 157
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that issue estoppel did not apply because there was no identity of subject matter between the prior suit and the present action.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1964] P 181
- [1967] 1 AC 853
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's claim.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of claim
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Copyright Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Green | Chancery Division | Yes | [1980] Ch 590 | England and Wales | Cited with approval regarding the constituent elements of res judicata. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 157 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of issue estoppel. |
| Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) | House of Lords | Yes | [1967] 1 AC 853 | United Kingdom | Cited for the necessary step in identifying an issue. |
| Thoday v Thoday | N/A | Yes | [1964] P 181 | N/A | Cited for the definition of issue estoppel. |
| Jelson (Estates) Ltd v Harvey | N/A | Yes | [1983] 1 WLR 1401 | N/A | Cited regarding procedural defects and going into the merits of a case. |
| Macfarlane v Leclaire | Privy Council | Yes | (1862) 15 Moo PC 181 | N/A | Cited regarding the finality of a judgment. |
| Peareth v Marriott | N/A | Yes | (1882) 22 Ch D 182 | N/A | Cited regarding the finality of a judgment. |
| Ex parte Moore. In re Faithfulll | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (1885) 14 QBD 627 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the finality of a judgment. |
| In re G J. Ex parte G J | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1905] 2 KB 678 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the finality of a judgment. |
| In re Riddell. Ex parte Earl of Strathmore | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (1888) 20 QBD 512 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the finality of a judgment. |
| Langmead v Maple | N/A | Yes | (1865) 18 CB NS 256 | N/A | Cited as an example of decisions lacking finality. |
| Jones v Reynolds | N/A | Yes | (1836) 7 Car & P 335 | N/A | Cited as an example of decisions lacking finality. |
| Hendrawan Setiadi v OCBC Securities Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 503 | Singapore | Cited regarding the intention of the judge when striking out a claim. |
| Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc | House of Lords | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 93 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding an exception to issue estoppel when further material becomes available. |
| Wardley Ltd v Town & City Properties Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1990] SLR 1080 | Singapore | Cited regarding discontinuing an action without precluding a fresh action. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court |
| O 21 r 4 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Res Judicata
- Issue Estoppel
- Striking Out
- Copyright Infringement
- Chain of Title
- Exclusive Licensee
15.2 Keywords
- res judicata
- issue estoppel
- copyright infringement
- striking out
- civil procedure
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Copyright Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Copyright Law
- Res Judicata
- Issue Estoppel