JIGME TSEWANG ATHOUP ALSO KNOWN AS JIGME RINPOCHE v. BRIGHTEC LTD AND OTHERS

JIGME TSEWANG ATHOUP ALSO KNOWN AS JIGME RINPOCHE v. BRIGHTEC LTD AND OTHERS

The application for security for costs was refused on the ground of delay because the defendants had earlier confirmed they would not bring further interlocutory applications when leave to set down was granted, the late application would cause real prejudice to the plaintiff given the imminent trial, and the defendants' explanation for delay was not credible; the trial judge also declined to assess merits at this stage to avoid pre-judging the trial.

Citation
JIGME TSEWANG ATHOUP ALSO KNOWN AS JIGME RINPOCHE v. BRIGHTEC LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Proprietor, Publisher and Printer of the Front Line (1st Defendant): 1st defendant; Editor in Chief of the Front Line (2nd Defendant): 2nd defendant; 3rd Defendant (default Judgment Entered): 3rd defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 October 2014
Case Number
HCA1693/2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Security for Costs Application (pre Trial, PTR Fixed)
Outcome
Application for security for costs refused
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Qualified Privilege, Reynolds Privilege/public Interest Defence, Reportage Defence, Delay, Case Management, Pre Trial Review
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Costs Security for Costs Qualified Privilege Reynolds Privilege/public Interest Defence Reportage Defence Delay +2 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st defendant

Proprietor, Publisher and Printer of the Front Line (1st Defendant)

2nd defendant

Editor in Chief of the Front Line (2nd Defendant)

3rd defendant

3rd Defendant (default Judgment Entered)

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Security for Costs Application (pre Trial, PTR Fixed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether security for costs should be ordered against the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' delay in applying for security for costs justifies refusal
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge should assess merits shortly before trial when considering security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The application for security for costs was refused on the ground of delay because the defendants had earlier confirmed they would not bring further interlocutory applications when leave to set down was granted, the late application would cause real prejudice to the plaintiff given the imminent trial, and the defendants' explanation for delay was not credible; the trial judge also declined to assess merits at this stage to avoid pre-judging the trial.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs refused

Orders

  • Security for costs application refused