TNAG-0265-FCO40-301-Legislation-for-copyright-in-Hong-Kong-1970 — Page 161

SDH/SB/R.86 GU

2

7th April, 1970

The jurisdiction summons was dismissed by the Hong Kong Court, but the no cause of action summons was successful, and the Writ was struck out by Order made on the 7th June, 1968.

The decisions on both Summonses were recently the subject of cross-appeals to the Privy Council and judgments on such appeals are now awaited.

As you will appreciate, from the above, neither of the Summonses, nor of the appeals, go to the merits of the Plaintiff's claim, namely whether or not the proposed Bill is within the powers of the Hong Kong Legislature. However, whatever the result of the appeals, we have thought it desirable, on behalf of our clients, to draw your attention to 5 passages relating to the validity of the proposed Bill from the transcript of the fifth day of the argument on the appeals which, we think, you may find helpful to your further consideration of the terms of the Order in Council, extending the Copyright Act 1956 to Hong Kong, and of the proposed Hong Kong Bill.

The first four passages are taken from pages 10/11, 11/12, 23/24 and 24, of the morning of the fifth day. The concession referred to was that made by the Solicitor General of Hong Kong for the purposes of both Summonses (not, in fact, just one Summons), but for those purposes only, namely that, if the Bill was enacted, it would be repugnant and void. From these passages you will observe that three out of the four Lords of Appeal hearing the appeals doubted the validity of the proposed Bill.

The fifth passage is taken from the afternoon of the same day. We think it is instructive in that no adverse comment was made after Mr. Wells

(appearing for our clients) had remarked that two of their Lordships (namely Lords Donovan and Morris on page 12 at the end of the above passage from page 11/12) had said, that morning, that the draft Ordinance was on

its face ultra vires.

Whatever may be the outcome of the present appeals, our clients could not remain quiescent in the face of threatened or actual legislation which has the practical effect of destroying certain of their valuable and freely negotiated licence rights. Those parts of the proposed legislation which would be the most damaging to our clients (being those same parts upon which certain of their Lordships made comments) do not appear to them to be designed to further the public interest but to protect a particular private commercial interest.

First Class

H.P. Hall, Esq., C.M.G., M.B.E.,

The Commonwealth Office,

Curtis Green Buildings,

Victoria Embankment,

London S.W.1.

Yours faithfully,

し