bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Cliff Buddle

Wharf Cable yesterday withdrew its action against the Government over the introduction of video-on-demand.

   Barrie Barlow, for Wharf, said the company would not be pursuing a claim it had been conned by the Government about the new service.

   The company had claimed the Government gave promises about competition and these had not been kept.

  Mr Justice Raymond Sears ordered the action be dismissed and awarded costs, believed to run into millions of dollars, against Wharf.

  An earlier part of the case, vigorously pursued by Wharf, came to an end in March when the judge ruled against the company.

  Wharf had claimed the Government's view that video-on-demand did not require a licence under the TV Ordinance was unlawful.

  The new service involved broadcasting and should require a subscription TV licence similar to the one held by Wharf, it was argued.

  But Mr Justice Sears drew a distinction between subscription television as provided by Wharf and video-on-demand.

  His ruling meant Hongkong Telecom and any other company which wanted to provide video-on-demand would not need a licence under the ordinance.

  After the judgment, Wharf said it would consider an appeal and whether to proceed with the second part of the case. Yesterday, the judge was told Wharf did not intend to appeal and the case would go no further.

  The brief High Court hearing involved an argument between Mr Barlow and Adrian Huggins QC, for the Government, over the case.

  Mr Huggins accused Wharf of failing to inform him about its intentions.

  He was 'getting shirty' because it would not have been necessary for him to attend had he known Wharf was going to withdraw.

  Mr Huggins said the company had refused to disclose its position and, even on the morning of the hearing, its solicitors would not say anything.

  Mr Barlow said the Secretary for Recreation and Culture had been informed of the situation. Who he told in the Government was his concern.

  Hongkong Telecom intended to introduce video-on-demand in July, but the launch date has been postponed until mid-1997 to incorporate better technology.

  The Government is to introduce legislation to regulate the service.

  Wharf's monopoly on pay TV, which expires at the end of next month, has been extended for another two years.



Wharf retreats over video-on-demand