DR ESTHETIC PRODUCT RESEARCH & PRODUCTION CENTRE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

DR ESTHETIC PRODUCT RESEARCH & PRODUCTION CENTRE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER

The defendants' jury application was dismissed because the trial will require detailed scientific investigation of complex expert reports and numerous technical articles, which would substantially prolong the trial, increase costs and risk that a jury would not understand the issues, making a jury trial inconvenient under s33A(1); the court refused to strike out paragraphs 1.5–1.9 of the Further and Better Particulars because their relevancy to justification was not plainly unarguable, but struck out paragraph 6A(4) of the Amended Defence as irrelevant and prejudicial insofar as it related to a sting not sued on (Lucas‑Box meaning).

Citation
DR ESTHETIC PRODUCT RESEARCH & PRODUCTION CENTRE LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: DR ESTHETIC PRODUCT RESEARCH & PRODUCTION CENTRE LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: WINSOR (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 1st Defendant: NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: LEE FO YEE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 August 2009
Case Number
HCA2776/2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) Action / Decision on Interlocutory Applications (jury Trial and Strike Out Applications)
Outcome
Interlocutory applications partly granted and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Jury Trial, Justification (defence), Strike Out of Pleadings, Expert Evidence, Scientific Investigation
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Jury Trial Justification (defence) Strike Out of Pleadings Expert Evidence Scientific Investigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR ESTHETIC PRODUCT RESEARCH & PRODUCTION CENTRE LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

WINSOR (HONG KONG) LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LIMITED

1st Defendant

LEE FO YEE

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) Action / Decision on Interlocutory Applications (jury Trial and Strike Out Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action should be tried with a jury under section 33A(1) High Court Ordinance given the scientific/expert issues
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 1.5 to 1.9 of the Further and Better Particulars and paragraph 6A(4) of the Amended Defence are irrelevant, frivolous/vexatious or prejudicial and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether Dr Chow's disciplinary reprimand is relevant to the defence of justification as pleaded and to the Lucas‑Box meanings

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' jury application was dismissed because the trial will require detailed scientific investigation of complex expert reports and numerous technical articles, which would substantially prolong the trial, increase costs and risk that a jury would not understand the issues, making a jury trial inconvenient under s33A(1); the court refused to strike out paragraphs 1.5–1.9 of the Further and Better Particulars because their relevancy to justification was not plainly unarguable, but struck out paragraph 6A(4) of the Amended Defence as irrelevant and prejudicial insofar as it related to a sting not sued on (Lucas‑Box meaning).

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications partly granted and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' Summons dated 16 October 2008 for a jury trial is dismissed
  • There is an order nisi that costs of the Defendants' Summons dated 16 October 2008 be to the Plaintiffs to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel