CENTA-CITY INDEX COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG ECONOMIC JOURNAL COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

CENTA-CITY INDEX COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG ECONOMIC JOURNAL COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

First Article was comment on a matter of public interest and protected by the defence of fair comment because it was based on substantially true background facts and represented honestly held views; Second Article went beyond protected comment by publishing factual accusations that plaintiffs 'cheated' and 'manipulated' the market without evidence, so fair comment and justification failed for the Second Article and the plaintiffs succeeded on that claim resulting in damages.

Citation
CENTA-CITY INDEX COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. HONG KONG ECONOMIC JOURNAL COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Centa-City Index Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Centraline Property Agency Limited; 3rd Plaintiff: Centranet Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Hong Kong Economic Journal Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Chan King Cheung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 October 2014
Case Number
HCA237/2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Judgment Following Trial
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs in respect of the Second Article; defendants successful on First Article (fair comment); injunction refused; damages awarded; costs ordered on part basis
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Justification, Meaning of Words, Damages, Costs, Injunction
Source Language
EN
Defamation Media Law Freedom of Expression Fair Comment Justification Meaning of Words Damages Costs +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Centa-City Index Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Centraline Property Agency Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Centranet Company Limited

3rd Plaintiff

Hong Kong Economic Journal Company Limited

1st Defendant

Chan King Cheung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Judgment Following Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the natural and ordinary meanings of the two articles
  2. 2 Whether the publications are defamatory
  3. 3 Whether defendants can establish justification (truth)

Ratio Decidendi

First Article was comment on a matter of public interest and protected by the defence of fair comment because it was based on substantially true background facts and represented honestly held views; Second Article went beyond protected comment by publishing factual accusations that plaintiffs 'cheated' and 'manipulated' the market without evidence, so fair comment and justification failed for the Second Article and the plaintiffs succeeded on that claim resulting in damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs in respect of the Second Article; defendants successful on First Article (fair comment); injunction refused; damages awarded; costs ordered on part basis

Orders

  • Costs nisi: defendants to pay two-thirds of plaintiffs' costs to be taxed if not agreed; certificate for two counsel