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

The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiffs to amend the reply to introduce the 2nd article because its probative relevance to malice outweighed the potential oppression or unfairness to the defendants; the defendants were prepared to meet the allegation and unexplained delay did not suffice to deny amendment in the circumstances.

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 KWAN; 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
16 November 1999
Case Number
HCA13058/1995
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory: Application to Amend Reply/pleadings
Outcome
Application to amend reply allowed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Malice, Duplicative Litigation, Prejudice and Oppression, Delay in Seeking Amendment
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Res Judicata Amendment of Pleadings Malice Duplicative Litigation Prejudice and Oppression +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

MA CHING KWAN

2nd Plaintiff

NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD.

1st Defendant

CHEUNG KIM HUNG

2nd Defendant

TOPPAN PRINTING CO. (H.K.) LTD.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory: Application to Amend Reply/pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs may amend their reply to rely on a second allegedly defamatory article that is the subject of a separate action
  2. 2 Whether admitting the second article would cause oppression or unfairness by forcing re-litigation of issues
  3. 3 Whether unexplained delay in seeking amendment defeats the application

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to allow the plaintiffs to amend the reply to introduce the 2nd article because its probative relevance to malice outweighed the potential oppression or unfairness to the defendants; the defendants were prepared to meet the allegation and unexplained delay did not suffice to deny amendment in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application to amend reply allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 7(ii) of the draft reply is to be added back to paragraph 7 of the reply for which leave to amend had been granted