REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE v. CHENG ALBERT JIANGHAN AND ANOTHER

REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE v. CHENG ALBERT JIANGHAN AND ANOTHER

The proposed amendments were disallowed because the fair comment amendment failed to identify the defamatory meanings and the specific comments required by authority, and the qualified privilege amendments were insufficiently particularised (notably as to the informant and verification) and could not establish reportage; accordingly leave to amend was refused and the summons dismissed.

Citation
REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE v. CHENG ALBERT JIANGHAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Mrs Ip; 1st Defendant: Mr Cheng; 2nd Defendant: Ms Yuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Case Number
HCA1458/2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Application to Amend Defences (summons Dated 29 December 2015)
Outcome
Summons dated 29 December 2015 dismissed
Legal Topics
Fair Comment, Qualified Privilege, Reportage, Republication, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Fair Comment Qualified Privilege Reportage Republication Amendment of Pleadings

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Ip

Plaintiff

Mr Cheng

1st Defendant

Ms Yuen

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Application to Amend Defences (summons Dated 29 December 2015)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proposed fair comment amendments identify the defamatory meaning(s) and the comment(s) complained of
  2. 2 Whether proposed qualified privilege amendments provide sufficient particulars about the confidential informant and attempts at verification by telephone
  3. 3 Whether the defences of qualified privilege or reportage are likely to succeed on the pleaded material

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments were disallowed because the fair comment amendment failed to identify the defamatory meanings and the specific comments required by authority, and the qualified privilege amendments were insufficiently particularised (notably as to the informant and verification) and could not establish reportage; accordingly leave to amend was refused and the summons dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 29 December 2015 dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dated 29 December 2015 dismissed
  • Parties to agree or sort out uncontested minor housekeeping amendments in the draft amended defences