TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. ALBERT CHENG AND OTHERS

TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. ALBERT CHENG AND OTHERS

Each defendant's fair comment defence is independent and complete once the objective test is satisfied; the plaintiff must prove malice against each defendant individually to rebut that defendant's defence, and malice by one defendant does not 'infect' another's defence absent proof specific to that defendant.

Citation
TSE WAI CHUN PAUL v. ALBERT CHENG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant (co Host): 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant (radio Station): 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant (co Host): 3rd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 May 1998
Case Number
HCA9983/1996
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Pre‑trial Ruling on Legal Issue Before Directing Jury
Outcome
Judge held plaintiff must adduce evidence of malice against each defendant individually and refused to leave to the jury those parts where no individual evidence of malice was produced.
Legal Topics
Fair Comment Defence, Malice, Qualified Privilege, Joint Publication, Burden of Proof
Source Language
EN
Defamation Media Law Tort Fair Comment Defence Malice Qualified Privilege Joint Publication Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant (co Host)

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant (radio Station)

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant (co Host)

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Pre‑trial Ruling on Legal Issue Before Directing Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff must prove malice against each defendant individually to rebut the defence of fair comment
  2. 2 Whether malice by one joint publisher can defeat another joint publisher's independent fair comment defence

Ratio Decidendi

Each defendant's fair comment defence is independent and complete once the objective test is satisfied; the plaintiff must prove malice against each defendant individually to rebut that defendant's defence, and malice by one defendant does not 'infect' another's defence absent proof specific to that defendant.

Court Disposition

Judge held plaintiff must adduce evidence of malice against each defendant individually and refused to leave to the jury those parts where no individual evidence of malice was produced.

Orders

  • Do not submit to the jury those particulars/defendants as to which the plaintiff has not adduced evidence of malice