EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

The proposed re‑amendments pleading the Short‑Piling Scandal and related ICAC arrests were disallowed because the pleaded matters were temporally remote, concerned different entities and activities, and lacked a sufficiently direct and clear connection to the plaintiff's reputation or to the contextual background of the alleged libels; permitting them would introduce inadmissible particular misconduct evidence and risk irrelevant collateral inquiries.

Citation
EXCEL CONCRETE LTD v. THE CONCRETE PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Excel Concrete Limited; 1st Defendant: The Concrete Producers Association of Hong Kong Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hong Kong Construction Materials Association Limited; 3rd Defendant: Leung Ying Wah Lambert; 4th Defendant: Hogan David James; 5th Defendant (struck Out): Chee Ying Keung Joseph; 6th Defendant (struck Out): Chan Kwok Keung; 7th Defendant: Anderson Concerete Limited; 8th Defendant: K Wah Concrete Company Limited; 9th Defendant: China Concrete Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 July 2013
Case Number
HCA938/2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation (civil) / Interlocutory Application to Re Amend Pleadings (permission to Re Amend Defence)
Outcome
Application to re‑amend Defence granted in part and refused in part; re‑amendments relating to Short‑Piling Scandal and paragraph 26(jb) disallowed.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Damages Mitigation, Burstein Particulars, Relevance of Prior Conduct, Amendment of Pleadings, Malice, Case Management
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Qualified Privilege Damages Mitigation Burstein Particulars Relevance of Prior Conduct Amendment of Pleadings +2 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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excel Concrete Limited

Plaintiff

The Concrete Producers Association of Hong Kong Limited

1st Defendant

Hong Kong Construction Materials Association Limited

2nd Defendant

Leung Ying Wah Lambert

3rd Defendant

Hogan David James

4th Defendant

Chee Ying Keung Joseph

5th Defendant (struck Out)

Chan Kwok Keung

6th Defendant (struck Out)

Anderson Concerete Limited

7th Defendant

K Wah Concrete Company Limited

8th Defendant

China Concrete Company Limited

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (civil) / Interlocutory Application to Re Amend Pleadings (permission to Re Amend Defence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants may plead historic misconduct of related companies as admissible Burstein particulars to challenge plaintiff's reputation
  2. 2 Whether the pleaded Short‑Piling Scandal and ICAC matters are directly relevant contextual background to the alleged libels
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded matters support a defence of qualified privilege or rebut plaintiff's plea of express malice

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed re‑amendments pleading the Short‑Piling Scandal and related ICAC arrests were disallowed because the pleaded matters were temporally remote, concerned different entities and activities, and lacked a sufficiently direct and clear connection to the plaintiff's reputation or to the contextual background of the alleged libels; permitting them would introduce inadmissible particular misconduct evidence and risk irrelevant collateral inquiries.

Court Disposition

Application to re‑amend Defence granted in part and refused in part; re‑amendments relating to Short‑Piling Scandal and paragraph 26(jb) disallowed.

Orders

  • Leave granted to defendants to re‑amend the Amended Defence consequential upon the Re‑Amended Statement of Claim and to make further re‑amendments as marked in the Draft except the proposed re‑amendments in paragraphs 4 and 26(jb) thereof
  • Defendants to file and serve their Re‑Amended Defence within 14 days from date of decision