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

9. It seems to me that in these circumstances it is urgent to grant a stay given that it may be that the issue of whether the applicant has a licence, which includes a licence to sublicense others, may resolve the claim. Even if it does not, and even if it is not appropriate to order that as a preliminary issue, I still think that it is appropriate to grant a stay.

10. However, I am concerned, for the reasons which I have touched on, that I have not heard from the claimants, although I was reassured by an e-mail from the claimants’ solicitors dated 8 th August 2018 where Ms. Cassandra Hill explains that: “… in principle our clients are not objecting to a stay in order that we can discuss the issues raised in your client’s application and, if appropriate, agree case management steps. However, for the reasons set out in our previous correspondence, we cannot agree to a stay with your clients in circumstances where they are not party to the proceedings and, therefore, do not have locus to do so.” Ms. Hill continues: “Further, not all of the defendants have agreed to the stay and our clients are concerned that any such stay will affect deadlines which it has to meet in these proceedings, including responding to an RFI and serving defendants who are outside the jurisdiction. Any stay, if ordered by the court, will need to provide for an extension in relation to these issues.”

11. I think that the best course is for me to order a stay for 21 days. That will have the effect that no defendant will have to serve any pleadings or take any step in the action. Furthermore, nor will the claimants have to meet any existing deadlines. But I do want to give the claimants the opportunity to be heard on this issue if they object. Therefore what I intend to do is to order a stay for 21 days but provide that the defendants or the claimants may apply on two days’ notice within the next 14 days to set aside or vary this order.

12. I have not yet decided whether to order what is called the “Common Issues” which means the question of a licence as a preliminary issue. I would like to hear, if that is objected to, from other parties. There are pros and cons to preliminary issues and it is not a decision to be made lightly. GHM v Wave Studio & Ors Approved Judgment

13. Therefore all I intend to do at this stage is, as I have said, to grant a short stay with the opportunity for other parties to apply. If they do not object, and if they do not object to the Common Issues being heard as a preliminary issue, then that can be done by consent.

14. So I shall provide for return date for this application in 21 days’ time where the issue can be discussed further if it has not been resolved by consent. (For continuation of proceedings: please see separate transcript) This transcript has been approved by the judge