Recordtv v MediaCorp: Groundless Threats & Conspiracy in Copyright Dispute
Recordtv Pte Ltd (RPL) sued MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others in the High Court of Singapore, alleging groundless threats of legal proceedings under s 200 of the Copyright Act and conspiracy. RPL claimed MediaCorp companies conspired to injure it through cease and desist letters related to copyright infringement. Tan Lee Meng J dismissed RPL's appeal, upholding the decision to strike out the conspiracy claim due to a lack of evidence after the exchange of affidavits of evidence-in-chief. The court found that the cease and desist letters alone were insufficient to establish a conspiracy.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Recordtv sues MediaCorp for groundless threats and conspiracy under the Copyright Act. The court struck out the conspiracy claim due to lack of evidence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RecordTV Pte Ltd | Appellant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| MediaCorp TV12 Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| MediaCorp News Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| MediaCorp Studios Pte Ltd | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Kai Hsiang | ATMD Bird & Bird LLP |
| Dedar Singh | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Cheah Yew Khuin | Wong & Leow LLC |
4. Facts
- RPL provides an online recording facility called "Internet-based Digital Video Recorder" (iDVR).
- The MediaCorp companies are licensed broadcasters in Singapore.
- The MediaCorp companies claimed RPL's re-broadcasting of their programmes infringed their copyright.
- MediaCorp companies sent two cease and desist letters to RPL alleging copyright infringement.
- RPL instituted legal proceedings against the MediaCorp companies, claiming groundless threats and conspiracy.
- No evidence of the alleged conspiracy was disclosed in any affidavit filed in support of RPL’s case.
- The MediaCorp companies filed a counterclaim in relation to copyright infringement of their broadcasts and films.
5. Formal Citations
- Recordtv Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 615/2007, RA 146/2009, [2009] SGHC 146
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MediaCorp companies sent the first cease and desist letter to RPL. | |
| MediaCorp companies sent the second cease and desist letter to RPL. | |
| RPL instituted legal proceedings against the MediaCorp companies. | |
| Court ordered particulars pertaining to the alleged conspiracy to be filed. | |
| Particulars pertaining to the alleged conspiracy were filed. | |
| MediaCorp companies filed an application to strike out the conspiracy claim. | |
| Assistant Registrar allowed the application to strike out the conspiracy claim. | |
| Andrew Ang J reversed the Assistant Registrar’s decision. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Cause of Action
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the conspiracy claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Disclosure of reasonable cause of action
- Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pleading
- Abuse of process of the court
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the cease and desist letters were insufficient to establish a conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Conspiracy by unlawful means
- Conspiracy by lawful means
- Intention to injure
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the exchange of affidavits of evidence-in-chief constituted a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a reconsideration of the application to strike out the conspiracy claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficient change in circumstances
- Groundless Threats of Legal Proceedings
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the issue of groundless threats, as the conspiracy claim was struck out.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Restraint Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Groundless Threats of Legal Proceedings
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Copyright Infringement
- Striking Out
11. Industries
- Media
- Technology
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited for the principles for striking out an action under Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court. |
| The Osprey | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 281 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'frivolous and vexatious' actions. |
| OCM Opportunities Fund II, LP and Others v Burhan Uray (alias Wong Ming Kiong) and Others | High Court | No | [2004] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case; cited as an example where a conspiracy claim was supported by numerous assertions. |
| Quah Kay Tee v Ong & Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 390 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the tort of conspiracy. |
| Chew Kong Huat v Ricwil (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 385 | Singapore | Cited for approving the elements of the tort of conspiracy as stated in Quah Kay Tee v Ong & Co Pte Ltd. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank Ag and Another and Another Appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 18 | Singapore | Cited for approving the elements of the tort of conspiracy as stated in Quah Kay Tee v Ong & Co Pte Ltd. |
| Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd v Keppel TatLee Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR 295 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a hopeless case should be struck out to avoid wasting resources. |
| Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1967] AC 853 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that estoppels must be applied to work justice and not injustice. |
| Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 93 | United Kingdom | Cited for the exception to issue estoppel when new material relevant to the determination of a point becomes available. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 200 of the Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Internet-based Digital Video Recorder
- iDVR
- Cease and desist letter
- Groundless threats
- Conspiracy
- Copyright infringement
- Affidavit of evidence-in-chief
- Striking out
- Issue estoppel
15.2 Keywords
- copyright
- groundless threats
- conspiracy
- striking out
- issue estoppel
- affidavit
- cease and desist
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Copyrights | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Torts | 70 |
| Estoppel | 60 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Copyright
- Civil Procedure
- Torts
- Equity