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

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

Costs are to be allocated to the parties who succeeded on each discrete reserved application: defendants awarded costs where their applications succeeded (admission attempts and withdrawal of malice), plaintiffs awarded costs where defendants' applications failed (putting Vines's statement before the jury and argument over calling Mr Wilson), and defendants awarded costs in respect of the no case application concerning the 2nd plaintiff because the defendants ultimately succeeded on that issue; the court's assessment turned on the evidence presented and fairness arising from parties' conduct.

Citation
ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Oriental Press Group Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Eastern Express Publisher Limited; 3rd Plaintiff: Ma Ching Kwan; 1st Defendant: Next Magazine Publishing Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Kim Hung; 3rd Defendant: Toppan Printing Company (H.K.) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2001
Case Number
HCA12525/1994
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Trial (ruling on Reserved Costs)
Outcome
Costs orders made allocating costs to successful parties for each of five reserved matters; certificate for two counsel granted if applicable
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Malice, Hearsay, No Case to Answer, Witness Obligation, Admission of Prior Statements
Source Language
EN
Civil Defamation Costs Evidence Fair Comment Malice Hearsay No Case to Answer +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oriental Press Group Limited

1st Plaintiff

Eastern Express Publisher Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Ma Ching Kwan

3rd Plaintiff

Next Magazine Publishing Limited

1st Defendant

Cheung Kim Hung

2nd Defendant

Toppan Printing Company (H.K.) Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Trial (ruling on Reserved Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements of Jenkins and Ma could be admitted under hearsay notices
  2. 2 Whether there was no case to answer as to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether the defendants could put Vines's 1994 statement before the jury

Ratio Decidendi

Costs are to be allocated to the parties who succeeded on each discrete reserved application: defendants awarded costs where their applications succeeded (admission attempts and withdrawal of malice), plaintiffs awarded costs where defendants' applications failed (putting Vines's statement before the jury and argument over calling Mr Wilson), and defendants awarded costs in respect of the no case application concerning the 2nd plaintiff because the defendants ultimately succeeded on that issue; the court's assessment turned on the evidence presented and fairness arising from parties' conduct.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made allocating costs to successful parties for each of five reserved matters; certificate for two counsel granted if applicable

Orders

  • Defendants entitled to costs for plaintiffs' application to admit statements of Mr Jenkins and Mr C.K. Ma
  • Defendants entitled to defendants' costs in the cause in respect of the no case application concerning the 2nd plaintiff