IP WING KIN v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

IP WING KIN v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

The court struck out the Defence paragraphs referring to un-named patients because, given the pleaded lack of particulars and the doctors duty of confidence, those allegations risked prejudicing or embarrassing a fair trial and could not be salvaged by the suggested procedural remedies; conversely, the court refused to strike out allegations relating to named patients, the pleaded fair comment (para.14) and para.12(28) because relevance, available witness statements and triable issues made striking out inappropriate.

Citation
IP WING KIN v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendants: Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 August 2000
Case Number
HCA12443/1999
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Appeal (strike Out Application)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed: paragraphs relating to un-named patients struck out; other challenged paragraphs not struck out.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Justification, Fair Comment, Particulars and Subpoenas, Privacy of Medical Records, Malice/aggravated/exemplary Damages
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Breach of Confidence Evidence Striking Out Justification Fair Comment Particulars and Subpoenas +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Appeal (strike Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particular paragraphs of the Defence should be struck out for irrelevance or prejudice
  2. 2 Whether allegations referring to named patients are admissible and relevant
  3. 3 Whether allegations referring to un-named patients should be struck out because of missing particulars and duty of confidentiality

Ratio Decidendi

The court struck out the Defence paragraphs referring to un-named patients because, given the pleaded lack of particulars and the doctors duty of confidence, those allegations risked prejudicing or embarrassing a fair trial and could not be salvaged by the suggested procedural remedies; conversely, the court refused to strike out allegations relating to named patients, the pleaded fair comment (para.14) and para.12(28) because relevance, available witness statements and triable issues made striking out inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed and partly dismissed: paragraphs relating to un-named patients struck out; other challenged paragraphs not struck out.

Orders

  • Struck out paragraphs 12(25) to 12(27), 12(29) to 12(32) and 12(34) to 12(37) of the Defence
  • Appeal dismissed in respect of paragraphs 12(6) to 12(11), 12(33), 12(38) to 12(41), 12(42) to 12(47), paragraph 14 (fair comment) and paragraph 12(28)