ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS

Judge held the article was incapable of referring to the 1st Plaintiff so the no‑case application succeeded in respect of P1; the exemplary damages issue was not supported by evidence of a gain‑loss weighing and was withdrawn; the malice issue was supported by cumulative evidence and was left to the jury.

Citation
ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Oriental Press Group Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Ma Ching Fat; 1st Defendant: Next Magazine Publishing Ltd; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Kim Hung; 3rd Defendant: Toppan Printing Co. (H.K.) Ltd
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 July 2000
Case Number
HCA11900/1995
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Ruling on Defendants' Applications at Close of Plaintiffs' Case Before Jury Trial
Outcome
Defendants' application of no case to answer in respect of 1st Plaintiff allowed; defendants' application to withdraw exemplary damages allowed; defendants' application to withdraw malice dismissed (malice left to jury).
Legal Topics
No Case to Answer, Exemplary Damages, Malice, Meaning of Publication, Insider Dealing Allegation
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Securities Law No Case to Answer Exemplary Damages Malice Meaning of Publication Insider Dealing Allegation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oriental Press Group Limited

1st Plaintiff

Ma Ching Fat

2nd Plaintiff

Next Magazine Publishing Ltd

1st Defendant

Cheung Kim Hung

2nd Defendant

Toppan Printing Co. (H.K.) Ltd

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Ruling on Defendants' Applications at Close of Plaintiffs' Case Before Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article was capable of referring to the 1st Plaintiff (no case to answer)
  2. 2 Whether the issue of exemplary damages should be left to the jury
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence of malice to leave that issue to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Judge held the article was incapable of referring to the 1st Plaintiff so the no‑case application succeeded in respect of P1; the exemplary damages issue was not supported by evidence of a gain‑loss weighing and was withdrawn; the malice issue was supported by cumulative evidence and was left to the jury.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application of no case to answer in respect of 1st Plaintiff allowed; defendants' application to withdraw exemplary damages allowed; defendants' application to withdraw malice dismissed (malice left to jury).

Orders

  • No case to answer in respect of Oriental Press Group Limited (1st Plaintiff) — issue withdrawn from jury
  • Issue of exemplary damages withdrawn from jury; jury directed not to award exemplary damages against defendants on the pleaded evidence