PUI KWAN KAY v. MING PAO HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

PUI KWAN KAY v. MING PAO HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Qualified privilege was not established because the defendants relied fundamentally on a single reporter's report without reviewing other contemporaneous newspaper accounts that contained materially different and more detailed coverage, they failed to fairly present or draw readers' attention to the plaintiff's subsequent answers, and given the seriousness and tone of the allegations a reasonable and responsible journalist would have taken those additional verifying and contextualising steps.

Citation
PUI KWAN KAY v. MING PAO HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr Pui; Defendant Proprietor: 1st Defendant (Proprietor of Ming Pao Daily); Defendant Publisher: 2nd Defendant (Publisher of Ming Pao Daily); Defendant Editor in Chief: 3rd Defendant (Editor-in-Chief of Ming Pao Daily)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 September 2013
Case Number
HCA854/2010
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Post Jury Verdict — Court Determination on Qualified Privilege Prior to Entry of Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Privilege, Responsible Journalism, Verification Duty, Damages
Source Language
EN
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Reynolds Privilege Responsible Journalism Verification Duty Damages

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Pui

Plaintiff

1st Defendant (Proprietor of Ming Pao Daily)

Defendant Proprietor

2nd Defendant (Publisher of Ming Pao Daily)

Defendant Publisher

3rd Defendant (Editor-in-Chief of Ming Pao Daily)

Defendant Editor in Chief

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Post Jury Verdict — Court Determination on Qualified Privilege Prior to Entry of Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of qualified privilege (Reynolds privilege) is established
  2. 2 Whether the defendants took reasonable and responsible steps to verify the material relied on (including reviewing other contemporaneous reports)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's side was fairly presented or sufficiently drawn to readers' attention

Ratio Decidendi

Qualified privilege was not established because the defendants relied fundamentally on a single reporter's report without reviewing other contemporaneous newspaper accounts that contained materially different and more detailed coverage, they failed to fairly present or draw readers' attention to the plaintiff's subsequent answers, and given the seriousness and tone of the allegations a reasonable and responsible journalist would have taken those additional verifying and contextualising steps.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $500,000 in damages
  • Costs to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed