G.E.M. seeks compensation for commercial performances, with her management company assisting in legal proceedings.
[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
Case review
Recently, a first-instance document regarding a performance contract dispute between Hummingbird Music Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Canxing Culture Media Co., Ltd. was made public.
The documents show that the plaintiff, Hummingbird Music, claims that in April 2016, Canxing Company planned to invite the plaintiff's artist, G.E.M., to participate in the recording of "The Hero." The two parties negotiated multiple times regarding the cooperation and largely reached a consensus on the main terms of the contract. Subsequently, the defendant requested G.E.M. to record the program early due to the tight schedule of the program recording. G.E.M. actually participated in recording one reality show and three episodes of the program. However, after the recording, the defendant never signed a written contract with the plaintiff or paid the remuneration.
[1] In 2018, Hummingbird Company and G.E.M. filed a lawsuit with the court. The Beijing Chaoyang District Court rejected their claims but determined that the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant was essentially a breach of contract in a performance agreement. The plaintiff argued that they had fulfilled the main obligations of the contract, which the defendant had accepted, so the contract had been established, and the defendant should pay the plaintiff 16.3 million yuan.
[2] The Shanghai Changning District Court held that this case involved a Hong Kong company as the plaintiff and a Hong Kong resident as the third party. Since the subject matter of the lawsuit exceeded 10 million yuan, the Changning District Court had no jurisdiction over the case and ultimately ruled that it should be transferred to the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.
[3] Civil Procedure Law
Article 19
[4] Intermediate People's Courts have jurisdiction over the following first-instance civil cases:
[5] (1) Major cases involving foreign elements;
……
[1] The author's perspective
This case was transferred from the Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court to the Shanghai Changning District People's Court, and then to the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court due to jurisdictional issues, showing that court jurisdiction is an important factor to consider in litigation. The plaintiff is a company established in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. According to the "Notice of the Shanghai Higher People's Court on Adjusting the Jurisdiction of First-instance Foreign-related, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan-related Civil and Commercial Cases in Shanghai Courts," the Changning District Court has jurisdiction over cases with a subject matter of 10 million yuan or less, while the subject matter of this case is 16.3 million yuan, so it is ultimately under the jurisdiction of the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.
When people take on a case, they often focus on substantive law while neglecting procedural law, not realizing that only by grasping both substance and procedure, as both are indispensable, can true fairness and justice be achieved.
