General Hotel Management, Ltd v The Wave Studio Pte Ltd & Ors

A person should be joined as a party where there is an issue involving that person and an existing party which is connected with the matters in dispute, and joinder is desirable for resolving that issue. A proposed party with direct knowledge of a potentially decisive licence may satisfy that test. The court may also impose a short stay where multiple parties face substantial duplicative costs and a common issue may resolve or materially simplify the proceedings. Any stay should accommodate affected parties’ opportunity to object and should preserve or extend procedural deadlines where appropriate.

The claimants brought copyright infringement proceedings concerning the use of photographs in advertisements against a large number of defendants. General Hotel Management, Ltd applied to be joined as a defendant, asserting that it had commissioned the photographs and held a licence, including a right to sub-license their use. After joinder, it applied for a stay of the proceedings pending consideration of common issues, including whether the licence existed.

The respondents and other defendants were not represented at the hearing. The court therefore considered both whether joinder was appropriate and whether an immediate case-management stay should be imposed.

1. Joinder. The application under CPR rule 19.2(2)(b) was granted. The licence issue involved the applicant and existing parties and was connected with the matters in dispute. It was desirable to add the applicant because it was the best party to address whether the licence and any right to sub-license existed. A licence could provide a complete answer to the claims against the defendants; alternatively, defendants might seek an indemnity from the applicant if the copyright claims succeeded.
2. Stay. The court considered that a stay was urgent and appropriate. Sixty-one defendants had been served, many had separate legal representation, and substantial duplicative costs were being incurred. The licence issue might resolve the claims or materially affect their management.
3. The court ordered a stay for 21 days. No defendant was required to serve pleadings or take any step during that period, and the claimants were not required to meet existing deadlines. The claimants or defendants could apply on two days’ notice within 14 days to set aside or vary the order.
4. The court did not determine whether the licence question should be ordered as a preliminary common issue. That question was left for further consideration or agreement by the parties.