Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interconnection

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2007

PCCW - HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

PCCW - HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL6/2007

The Authority validly exercised powers under TO ss.36B(1)(a)(i) and (iii) to issue an interim direction requiring PCCW to secure interconnection with Wharf for Zone's 5804 VoIP service and to set interim charges at LIC; SC 3.1/3.2 of PCCW's licence imposed a mandatory duty to interconnect and a duty to use reasonable endeavours to secure prompt interconnection; TO s.32F(4) and the numbering Code did not confer additional independent power; the Direction was not illegal or irrational and was a proportionate, light-touch regulatory intervention pending negotiation or a s.36A determination.
1 Nov 2004

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL62/2003

Clause 54 of the licence imposes a negative obligation not to obstruct existing telecommunication services; it does not impose a positive duty to ensure concurrent reception. The Authority exceeded its powers by directing the applicant to submit a plan effectively requiring provision of concurrent services and by incorporating government policy as a mandatory determinant of the plan; the direction was therefore ultra vires and Wednesbury unreasonable and must be quashed.
8 Jul 2004

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV274/2003

The court held that (1) an appeal under s32N(1)(a)(i) is only available where the TA, expressly or impliedly, formed an opinion that the conduct in question engaged ss 7K–7N (thus the Direction here did relate to ss 7K/7L and PCCW was entitled to appeal); and (2) the Appeal Board lacks jurisdiction to grant an interim stay pending appeal because s32N(2)-(3) expressly preclude suspension except where s36C applies and no statutory power otherwise authorises a stay.
30 Jun 2004

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

Citation

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL152/2002

S.36B(1)(a)(iii) must be read with the expanded definitions in s.36A(3D)/(3E) so as to permit the Authority to direct broadband Type II interconnection, but the Authority acted unlawfully in the May 2002 direction by failing, in the circumstances of deadlock over terms, to set interim terms and conditions; that failure was irrational and arbitrary and therefore the direction was unlawful though remedy and costs are reserved.

Hong Kong Case Law

PCCW - HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

HONG KONG CABLE TELEVISION LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

PCCW-HKT TELEPHONE LTD v. THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY