Case

Topics: Ratio decidendi, Stare decisis, Obiter dictum Pages: 3 (908 words) Published: November 17, 2013
Case Report Worksheet
Case name including citation?
Fisher V Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, [1960] 3 WLR 919, [1960] 3 All ER 731, HKSAR V Chow Kwong Chun (unrep., HCMA No 836 of 2001) and HKSAR V Wan Hon Sik [2001] 3 HKLRD 283 were cited in the judgeme Is it a civil case or criminal case?

It is a criminal case as Yu Wai Chuen was charged by HKSAR.
Who are the parties?
The plaintiff (prosecutor) was HKSAR and defendant was Yu Wai Chuen. This was an appeal by Yu Wai Chuen against HKSAR (respondent). In which court was the case heard?
The case was heard in The court of First Instance.
Which courts considered this case before the current court and what did they decide? The case was considered by The Magistrate Court. He was convicted of offering for sale infringing copies of copyright works, being compact discs, contrary to s.118(1)(e)(ii) of the Copyright Ordinance (Cap.528). and obstructing a member of the Customs and Excise Service in the course of his duties, contrary to s.17F of the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance (Cap.342). What are the issues to be decided by the current court?

A person commits an offence if he offers or exposes for sale or hire for the purpose of, in course of, or in connection with, any trade or business without the license of the copyright owner. It is an infringing copy of the copyright work. Summary of the key facts that are the basis of litigation

Defendant, Yu Wai Cheun, was convicted of offering for sale infringing copies of copyright works since his words “Feel free to look, feel free to choose, buy while stocks last” said to specific person was said to constitute an offer. However, Yu did not agree and appeal against the conviction. Summary of the arguments made by the plaintiff (prosecutor)

Yu Wai Chuen without the licence of the copyright owner, offered for sale 53 CDs being infringing copies of copyright works, namely literary works, for the purpose of trade or business. It is contrary to s.118(1)(e)(ii) of the Copyright...
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay about Legal Methord Case Note
  • Case Law and the Doctrine of Precedent Essay
  • Essay on Case Assignment 1
  • Cold Case Investigation Essay
  • Case Management Essay
  • Case Process Research Paper
  • Essay about Kensington Tablet Cases Make Holiday Shopping a Snap
  • Essay about Case Study Worksheet GE

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free