Lee Kien Meng v Cintamani Frank: Ownership of Facebook Pages & Enforceability of Agreement

Lee Kien Meng appealed against the District Judge's decision to dismiss his claim against Cintamani Frank. The High Court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, dismissed the appeal, finding that Lee Kien Meng did not have a proprietary right to the Facebook Pages created for Men's Fashion Week and Women's Fashion Week, and that there was no enforceable agreement for Cintamani Frank to transfer control of the pages. The claim included a request for a declaration of ownership, reinstatement of the pages, and damages. The court found no basis for the declaratory relief or damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in its entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding ownership of Facebook pages and enforceability of an agreement to transfer control. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no proprietary right.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Kien MengAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Cintamani FrankRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Beh Eng SiewLee Bon Leong & Co
Suja Michelle SasidharanLee Bon Leong & Co
Derek Kang Yu HsienRodyk & Davidson LLP
Wong Wai HanRodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. Appellant had expertise in digital social media and was the sole shareholder and director of Senatus Pte Ltd.
  2. Respondent was an Indonesian businessman and the chairman and founder of Men’s Fashion Week and Women’s Fashion Week in Singapore.
  3. Senatus was engaged by Fide to promote MFW and WFW online through social media in 2010.
  4. Appellant was appointed the Sponsorship Director of MFW 2011 and the Festival Director of WFW 2011.
  5. There was no agreement for remuneration for the Appellant's role as Sponsorship Director and Festival Director.
  6. Appellant set up Facebook Pages and Twitter accounts for MFW 2011 and WFW 2011.
  7. Respondent removed all administrators of the Facebook Pages, including the Appellant, on 28 March 2012.
  8. Appellant commenced legal proceedings claiming ownership of the Facebook Pages, reinstatement, and damages.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Kien Meng v Cintamani Frank, District Court Appeal No 48 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 109

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Senatus engaged by Fide to promote MFW and WFW online.
MFW and WFW events organised.
Appellant approached Respondent regarding advertising spots.
Fide and Senatus entered into a written advertising contract.
Appellant approached Respondent regarding an increase in the price of online advertising spots.
Respondent removed all administrators of the Facebook Pages, including the Appellant.
Appellant sent an email to the Respondent requesting restoration of his status as administrator.
Respondent replied via email offering to hand over the Facebook pages.
Appellant requested a specific date for the handing over of the Facebook Pages.
Respondent replied that he wanted the matter to go through his lawyers.
Appellant’s solicitors wrote to the Respondent’s solicitors requesting a draft agreement.
District Court Appeal No 48 of 2014
Appeal dismissed by the High Court.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Proprietary Right in Facebook Pages
    • Outcome: The court held that the Appellant did not have a proprietary right in the Facebook Pages.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Enforceability of Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no legally enforceable agreement to hand over control of the Facebook Pages.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Recovery for Loss
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no basis for damages based on the hours of work done by the Appellant.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Ownership
  2. Reinstatement of Facebook Pages
  3. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Claim for Proprietary Rights

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Fashion
  • Social Media
  • Advertising

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Class One Enterprises Pte Ltd v Motherland Movies (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 424SingaporeCited to support the distinction between ownership of copyright in a work and ownership of the tangible medium in which the work is expressed.
Jonathan Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS TrustEnglish Court of AppealNo[2010] 1 QB 1England and WalesCited to illustrate that there are some 'things' which are not capable of being the subject of property at common law.
National Provincial Bank Ltd v AinsworthHouse of LordsYes[1965] AC 1175England and WalesCited for the essential characteristics of a proprietary right.
Toh Eng Lan v Foong Fook Yue and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 833SingaporeCited with approval of National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth for the essential characteristics of a proprietary right.
Asia Pacific Publishing Pte Ltd v Pioneers & Leaders (Publishers) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 381SingaporeCited for the test of originality for compilations.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 7ASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Facebook Pages
  • Proprietary Right
  • Enforceable Agreement
  • Consideration
  • Mutuality of Interests
  • Administrators
  • Content
  • Compilation
  • Intellectual Creation

15.2 Keywords

  • Facebook
  • Social Media
  • Ownership
  • Agreement
  • Contract
  • Copyright
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law75
Social Media Law60
Estoppel30
Property Law25
Intellectual Property Law20

16. Subjects

  • Intellectual Property
  • Contract Law
  • Social Media Law