Charles Sin Cho Chiu v. Tin Tin Publication Development Ltd. and Another

Charles Sin Cho Chiu v. Tin Tin Publication Development Ltd. and Another

The court found the 1st Defendant published clear defamatory imputations about the plaintiff, acted recklessly and maliciously in publishing and juxtaposing material designed to smear the plaintiff, failed to mitigate by apology, and persisted in unmeritorious defences; applying comparable authorities and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
Charles Sin Cho Chiu v. Tin Tin Publication Development Ltd. and Another
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Sin Cho Chiu; 1st Defendant: Tin Tin Publication Development Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 2002
Case Number
HCA6662/1997
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Assessment of Damages and Costs (quantum Hearing Following Finding of Liability)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff on liability; damages awarded against 1st Defendant
Legal Topics
Libel, General Damages, Aggravated Damages, Wasted Costs, Apology, Malice, Justification, Fair Comment
Source Language
en
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Libel General Damages Aggravated Damages Wasted Costs Apology +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Sin Cho Chiu

Plaintiff

Tin Tin Publication Development Limited

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Assessment of Damages and Costs (quantum Hearing Following Finding of Liability)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article referred to and defamed the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth
  3. 3 Quantum of general damages for reputational harm

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the 1st Defendant published clear defamatory imputations about the plaintiff, acted recklessly and maliciously in publishing and juxtaposing material designed to smear the plaintiff, failed to mitigate by apology, and persisted in unmeritorious defences; applying comparable authorities and the factors of circulation and conduct, the court awarded $2,000,000 general damages and $1,000,000 aggravated damages and ordered the defendant's solicitors to show cause within 30 days why a wasted costs order should not be made against them.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff on liability; damages awarded against 1st Defendant

Orders

  • Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant for $2,000,000 general damages and $1,000,000 aggravated damages
  • Solicitors for the 1st Defendant to show cause in writing within 30 days why a wasted costs order should not be made against them (or apply for an oral hearing)