COMPASS v SingNet: Copyright Tribunal's Power to Grant Retrospective Orders

In Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd (COMPASS) v SingNet Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the question of whether the Copyright Tribunal has the power to grant retrospective orders under Section 163(2) of the Copyright Act. COMPASS sought a determination from the court after the Copyright Tribunal allowed COMPASS to refer a question of law to the High Court. Dedar Singh Gill J held that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to make orders that take effect retrospectively from a time predating the said orders.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

The court answered the question in the negative, holding that the Copyright Tribunal does not have the power to grant retrospective orders under Sections 163(2) and 163(6)(b) of the Copyright Act.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court held that the Copyright Tribunal lacks the power to grant retrospective orders under Section 163(2) of the Copyright Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Composers and Authors Society of Singapore LtdApplicantCorporationLostLost
SingNet Pte LtdRespondentCorporationWonWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Dedar Singh GillJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wang LianshengBih Li & Lee LLP
Chua Siew Ling AileenBih Li & Lee LLP
Lee Hwee Khiam AnthonyBih Li & Lee LLP
Mak Sushan MelissaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Goh En-Ci GloriaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Soon Jia Ling AmandaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Dr Stanley Lai SCAllen & Gledhill LLP
David LimAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. COMPASS is a collecting society representing owners of musical works.
  2. SingNet provides television cable services through Singtel TV Pay TV.
  3. SingNet applied to the Copyright Tribunal for orders regarding the reasonableness of COMPASS's license charges.
  4. COMPASS commenced a suit against SingNet for copyright infringement allegedly committed since 1 April 2013.
  5. The High Court ordered a stay of the suit pending the determination of the Tribunal Proceedings.
  6. The Copyright Tribunal allowed COMPASS to refer a question of law to the High Court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd v SingNet Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 158 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 220

6. Timeline

DateEvent
SingNet allegedly committed acts of copyright infringement.
SingNet commenced proceedings in CT No 1 of 2019 against COMPASS.
COMPASS commenced Suit No 261 of 2019 against SingNet.
The High Court ordered a stay of the Suit pending the determination of the Tribunal Proceedings.
Copyright tribunal issued an order allowing COMPASS to refer a question of law to the High Court.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal to grant retrospective orders
    • Outcome: The court held that the Copyright Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to make retrospective final orders under Sections 163(2) and 163(6)(b) of the Copyright Act.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Determination of the Copyright Tribunal's jurisdiction
  2. Orders regarding reasonable license charges

9. Cause of Actions

  • Copyright Infringement

10. Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications
  • Media and Entertainment

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 373SingaporeCited for the process of purposive statutory interpretation.
Sunvic Production Pte Ltd v Composers and Authors Society of Singapore LtdCopyright TribunalYes[1993] SGCRT 1SingaporeCited for the principle that the Copyright Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to make retrospective final orders.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the principle that the relevant Parliamentary intention is to be found at the time the law was enacted.
Singapore Broadcasting Corporation v The Performing Right Society Ltd (Composers and Authors Society of Singapore Ltd, Third Party)Copyright TribunalYes[1991] SGCRT 1SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the Tribunal made a retrospective order, but the current judgment disagrees with that decision.
Universal Music Australia and others v EMI Music Publishing Australia Pty Ltd and othersAustralian tribunalYes[2000] ACopyT 5AustraliaCited for the interpretation of the Australian Copyright Act and the role of interim orders.
Phonographic Performance Company of Australia Limited under s 154(1) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)Australian tribunalYes[2016] ACopyT 3AustraliaCited as an example of a case where the Australian tribunal made a retrospective final order, but the current judgment finds it of limited assistance.
Phonographic Performances (NZ) Ltd v Radioworks LimitedNew Zealand tribunalYes[2010] NZCopyT 1New ZealandCited as an example of a case where the New Zealand tribunal issued retrospective final orders pursuant to an express backdating provision.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Copyright Tribunal
  • Retrospective Order
  • Licence Scheme
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Interim Order
  • Collecting Society

15.2 Keywords

  • copyright
  • tribunal
  • retrospective
  • licence
  • singnet
  • compass

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Copyrights90
Administrative Law40
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Copyright Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Civil Procedure