TNAG-0265-FCO40-301-Legislation-for-copyright-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 160

Sydney Morse & Co

LORD TANGLEY, K.B.E.

S.D.HERINGTON

H.R.HERBERT

EVAN JACK

P.E.A. ENGLISH

H. S. WRIGHT

G. B. MORGAN

TELEPHONE: 01-606 6911

TELEGRAMS: ESROM, LONDON, EC1

4/6/1

Alder House,

1. Aldersgate Street.

London, E.6.1.

OUR REF. SDH/SB/R.86 GU

YOUR REF.

7th April, 1970

Dear Sir,

Hong Kong Copyright

As you will no doubt remember, Group Captain Dundas,

a director of Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Limited for whom we act, was in communication with you in late 1967 and early 1968 in relation to the draft Order in Council extending the Copyright Act 1956 to Hong Kong, and the draft Hong Kong Bill to modify or add to that Act in its operation as part of the law of Hong Kong.

He then pointed out to you the grave concern of our clients over some of the proposed provisions of that Bill in their probable effect on our clients' business and on the franchises granted to our clients by licences granted by the Hong Kong Government and our clients' view that it might be ultra vires the powers of the Hong Kong Legislature to enact such provisions. The major concern of our clients in relation to the proposed Bill was in connection with a provision thereof which was apparently designed to make it an infringement of the copyright in a broadcast to relay it as part of a diffusion service, whereas relay of broadcasts is not an infringement of the copyright therein under the 1956 Act in its operation as part of the law of this country.

You may be aware that, following such correspondence, our clients were obliged in order to protect their legal interests to commence proceedings in Hong Kong seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it would not be lawful for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to pass the proposed Bill on the grounds that such Bill was ultra vires the powers, or prospective powers, of such body.

The Writ on such proceedings was issued on the 10th April 1968 against 3 representative members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong and Mr. Hamilton the then Deputy Colonial Secretary. The subsequent course of these proceedings, in brief, is that the Defendants issued two Summonses to strike out the Writ, one on the grounds that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs claimed, and the other on the grounds that the Writ disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

H.P. Hall, Esq., C.M.G., M.B.E., The Commonwealth Office.

/continued...