PUBG Corp v Garena: Stay of Court Proceedings Pending Arbitration on Settlement Agreement Validity
PUBG Corporation, the appellant, appealed against the High Court's decision to stay court proceedings against Garena International I Private Limited and others, the respondents, pending the resolution of an arbitration. The dispute arose from alleged intellectual property rights infringement, with the respondents claiming a settlement agreement containing an arbitration clause was reached, which PUBG disputed. The Court of Appeal, led by Sundaresh Menon CJ, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that the validity of the settlement agreement should be determined first through arbitration before the court proceedings continue.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration to determine the validity of a settlement agreement. The court upheld the stay.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PUBG Corporation | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Garena International I Private Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Stay of Proceedings Upheld | Won | |
| Li Xiaodong | Respondent | Individual | Stay of Proceedings Upheld | Won | |
| Garena Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Stay of Proceedings Upheld | Won | |
| Sea Limited (formerly known as Garena Interactive Holding Limited) | Respondent | Corporation | Stay of Proceedings Upheld | Won | |
| Garena Online Private Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Stay of Proceedings Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Ying Sin Daniel | Joyce A. Tan & Partners LLC |
| Vignesh Vaerhn | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- PUBG Corporation commenced court proceedings against the respondents for copyright infringement and passing off.
- The parties engaged in settlement negotiations, and PUBG Corporation sent a proposed settlement agreement to the respondents.
- The respondents countersigned and returned the settlement agreement several months later.
- PUBG Corporation protested that the offer in the settlement agreement was no longer capable of being accepted.
- The settlement agreement contained an arbitration clause for disputes arising in connection with the agreement.
- The respondents commenced arbitration against PUBG Corporation, contending that it had acted in breach of the settlement agreement.
- The respondents applied for a stay of the court proceedings on case management grounds, pending the resolution of the arbitration.
5. Formal Citations
- PUBG Corp v Garena International I Pte Ltd and others, Civil Appeal No 184 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 51
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| PUBG Corporation commenced court proceedings against the respondents. | |
| Timelines in the court proceedings were suspended to allow the parties to reach a settlement. | |
| Timelines in the court proceedings were suspended to allow the parties to reach a settlement. | |
| PUBG Corporation offered settlement terms by sending a proposed settlement agreement to the respondents. | |
| The respondents purported to accept the appellant’s offer of settlement by countersigning the settlement agreement. | |
| PUBG Corporation's solicitors protested that the offer contained in the settlement agreement was no longer capable of being accepted. | |
| The respondents commenced arbitration against PUBG Corporation. | |
| The respondents applied for a stay of the court proceedings on case management grounds. | |
| The Judge extended the stay for a further six months. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. | |
| Arbitration hearing fixed. | |
| Appellant estimates that the tribunal is expected to render its award. |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Court Proceedings
- Outcome: The court upheld the stay of court proceedings pending the resolution of the arbitration.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Case management stay
- Overlap of issues between court proceedings and arbitration
- Validity of Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court determined that the validity of the settlement agreement should be resolved first through arbitration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Formation of contract
- Acceptance of offer
- Existence of arbitration clause
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Injunctive Relief
- Stay of Proceedings
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
- Passing Off
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
- Intellectual Property Litigation
11. Industries
- Technology
- Gaming
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and anor v Silica Investors Ltd and or appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on which a court should exercise its inherent power to stay court proceedings on case management grounds, pending the resolution of a related arbitration. |
| Rex International Holding Ltd and anor v Gulf Hibiscus Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 682 | Singapore | Cited to caution against the mechanical application of principles developed in previous cases without regard to the particular circumstances. |
| Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the effect of a settlement is to put an end to the proceedings. |
| Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the question of whether a settlement agreement exists is often tried as a preliminary issue. |
| Malini Ventura v Knight Capital Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 707 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is bound not to ignore a valid arbitration agreement and should allow any dispute to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. |
| Sim Chay Koon and ors v NTUC Income Insurance Co-operative Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 871 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court is bound not to ignore a valid arbitration agreement and should allow any dispute to be determined by the arbitral tribunal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Settlement Agreement
- Arbitration Clause
- Case Management Stay
- Intellectual Property Rights
- Copyright Infringement
- Validity of Settlement
- Arbitration
- Kompetenz-Kompetenz
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- stay of proceedings
- settlement agreement
- intellectual property
- copyright
- case management
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Intellectual Property
- Contract Law