ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHER

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHER

An interlocutory injunction was appropriate only where the alleged meaning was clearly defamatory and the defendants had not properly pleaded or sworn a defence of justification or fair comment; on the evidence Articles A and Part II of B were clearly libellous and lacked pleaded justification so an injunction was granted for those parts, whereas for B Part I, C, D, E and F the defendants raised or indicated viable defences of justification/fair comment or facts they might justify, so injunctions were refused as not the clearest cases.

Citation
ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LIMITED AND ANOTHER v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHER
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.; 4th Defendant: Easyfinder Ltd.; 5th Defendant: Chan Leung Yu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 1995
Case Number
HCA3818/1995
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) Action / Interlocutory Injunction Hearing in Chambers
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction granted in respect of Article A and Part II of Article B; interlocutory injunction refused for Article B Part I, Article C, Article D, Article E and Article F.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Justification, Fair Comment, Meaning of Defamatory Words, Publication Repetition
Source Language
EN
Defamation Equity Media Law Interlocutory Injunction Justification Fair Comment Meaning of Defamatory Words Publication Repetition

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
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

Easyfinder Ltd.

4th Defendant

Chan Leung Yu

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) Action / Interlocutory Injunction Hearing in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether each article (A–F) is defamatory
  2. 2 Whether defendants have viable defences (justification or fair comment)
  3. 3 Whether interlocutory injunctions should be granted in respect of each article

Ratio Decidendi

An interlocutory injunction was appropriate only where the alleged meaning was clearly defamatory and the defendants had not properly pleaded or sworn a defence of justification or fair comment; on the evidence Articles A and Part II of B were clearly libellous and lacked pleaded justification so an injunction was granted for those parts, whereas for B Part I, C, D, E and F the defendants raised or indicated viable defences of justification/fair comment or facts they might justify, so injunctions were refused as not the clearest cases.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction granted in respect of Article A and Part II of Article B; interlocutory injunction refused for Article B Part I, Article C, Article D, Article E and Article F.

Orders

  • Interlocutory injunction granted restraining publication of the first and second words in Article A and Part II of Article B as set out in the Statement of Claim schedules
  • Interlocutory injunction refused in respect of Article B Part I, Article C, Article D, Article E and Article F