PropertyGuru v 99 Pte Ltd: Breach of Contract, Tort of Inducement, Copyright Infringement in Online Property Classifieds

PropertyGuru Pte Ltd sued 99 Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, and copyright infringement related to cross-posting property listings between their websites. The court, presided over by Judge Hoo Sheau Peng, found 99 Pte Ltd liable for partially breaching the settlement agreement by reproducing listings from PropertyGuru's website using the Posting Assistant Service, but dismissed the claims for inducement of breach of contract and copyright infringement. The defendant's counterclaim for groundless threats of legal proceedings was also dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

I allow the plaintiff’s claim for breach of the Settlement Agreement in part, in that the defendant is liable for the breach of cl 2.1(a) of the Settlement Agreement by substantially reproducing one listing with the nine photographs from the PG website to the 99 website.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

PropertyGuru sues 99 Pte Ltd for breach of contract, inducement of breach, and copyright infringement. The court found a partial breach of contract.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
PropertyGuru Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim Allowed in PartPartial
99 Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim Dismissed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau PengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sathinathan s/o MR KaruppiahSamuel Seow Law Corporation
Shaun Marc LewSamuel Seow Law Corporation
Koh Chia LingOC Queen Street LLC
Gerald Tan Han JieOC Queen Street LLC

4. Facts

  1. PropertyGuru and 99 Pte Ltd are competitors in the online property classifieds business.
  2. PropertyGuru launched its website in 2007, while 99 Pte Ltd launched its website in 2015.
  3. 99 Pte Ltd initially scraped listings from PropertyGuru's website.
  4. PropertyGuru and 99 Pte Ltd entered into a Settlement Agreement on 28 September 2015.
  5. 99 Pte Ltd developed and marketed the Xpressor App, which allowed users to cross-post listings from PropertyGuru to 99 Pte Ltd.
  6. 99 Pte Ltd offered the Posting Assistant Service (PA Service), where an independent contractor would manually cross-post listings.
  7. PropertyGuru claimed that 99 Pte Ltd breached the Settlement Agreement, induced breach of contract, and infringed copyright.

5. Formal Citations

  1. PropertyGuru Pte Ltd v 99 Pte Ltd, Suit No 470 of 2016, [2018] SGHC 52

6. Timeline

DateEvent
PropertyGuru Pte Ltd incorporated
PropertyGuru Pte Ltd launched the PG website
99 Pte Ltd incorporated
99 Pte Ltd launched the 99 website
99 Pte Ltd and MPG entered into the Xpressor Agreement
Apple Store gave approval for the upload of the Xpressor App
Settlement Agreement signed between PropertyGuru Pte Ltd and 99 Pte Ltd
Alleged inducement of breach of contract by 99 Pte Ltd
PropertyGuru’s solicitors sent a letter to MPG alleging inducement of breach
MPG and PropertyGuru signed a confidential settlement agreement
Letter of demand sent by PropertyGuru
Last recorded change to the Terms of Service
PropertyGuru commenced proceedings
99 Pte Ltd started offering the PA Service
Representative of 99 Pte Ltd informed Ms Tong that she would be informed when her listings were posted on the 99 website
Trial began
Parties’ closing submissions received
Reply submissions received
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for breach of cl 2.1(a) of the Settlement Agreement by substantially reproducing one listing with nine photographs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of settlement agreement
      • Substantial reproduction of content
      • Connecting to website for posting information
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 219
      • [2017] SGCA 68
  2. Inducement of Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for inducement of breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407
      • [2015] 2 SLR 271
  3. Copyright Infringement
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for copyright infringement, finding no copyright in the watermarked photographs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ownership of copyright in watermarked photographs
      • Originality of derivative works
    • Related Cases:
      • [1989] AC 217
      • [1995] FSR 870
      • [2005] 2 SLR(R) 157
  4. Groundless Threats of Infringement Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim for groundless threats of legal proceedings of copyright infringement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 4 SLR 86
      • [2017] 2 SLR 185

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunctive Relief
  3. Declaration that threats are unjustifiable

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Inducement of Breach of Contract
  • Copyright Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Breach of Contract

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yap Son On v Ding Pei ZhenCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 219SingaporeCited for the principle that contractual interpretation aims to give effect to the objectively-ascertained expressed intentions of the contracting parties.
Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] SGCA 68SingaporeCited for the principle that the parties’ subjective understanding of the contract should be treated with caution.
M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Leow Tet Sin and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 271SingaporeCited for the elements of the tort of inducement of breach of contract.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited for the definition of the tort of inducing a breach of contract.
Interlego AG v Tyco Industries IncPrivy CouncilYes[1989] AC 217United KingdomCited for the principle that copying per se does not result in an original work, and there must be an element of material alteration or embellishment.
The Reject Shop Plc v Robert MannersEnglish High CourtYes[1995] FSR 870England and WalesCited for the principle that photocopying and enlarging versions of copyrighted drawings does not create a new copyrighted work.
Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Suncool International Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 157SingaporeCited as an example of a material alteration to raw data resulting in a new copyrighted work.
Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 86SingaporeCited for the legal principles pertaining to groundless threats of copyright infringement under s 200 of the Copyright Act.
Global Yellow Pages Ltd v Promedia Directories Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 185SingaporeCited for the legal principles pertaining to groundless threats of copyright infringement under s 200 of the Copyright Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 163, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Cross-post
  • Property listings
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Xpressor App
  • Posting Assistant Service
  • Watermark
  • Content
  • Terms of Service
  • Acceptable Use Policy

15.2 Keywords

  • PropertyGuru
  • 99 Pte Ltd
  • breach of contract
  • inducement
  • copyright
  • property listings
  • Singapore
  • settlement agreement
  • Xpressor
  • PA Service

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law90
Inducement of Breach of Contract70
Copyrights60
Intellectual Property Law60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Copyright Dispute
  • Online Property Classifieds
  • Intellectual Property