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 court accepted that the reportage defence as articulated in Roberts v Gable is available in Hong Kong but held the defendants did not establish it here because the Article was presented as the author's own piece (pseudonymous author), lacked the defining characteristic of reportage (neutral reporting of the fact allegations were made), failed adequate attribution and responsible journalism/verification, and therefore the 1st and 2nd Defendants were liable for defamation; compensatory damages of HKD 150,000 were awarded and aggravated damages were refused.

Citation
JIGME TSEWANG ATHOUP also known as JIGME RINPOCHE v. BRIGHTEC LTD AND OTHERS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 January 2015
Case Number
HCA1693/2011
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment (trial on Liability and Quantum)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants; damages awarded; costs to defendants subject to order nisi
Legal Topics
Reportage Defence, Reynolds Privilege, Qualified Privilege, Neutral Forum Defence, Aggravated Damages, Attribution and Verification
Source Language
EN
Defamation Media Law Constitutional Rights (freedom of Expression) Reportage Defence Reynolds Privilege Qualified Privilege Neutral Forum Defence Aggravated Damages +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment (trial on Liability and Quantum)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reportage defence as formulated in Roberts v Gable is part of Hong Kong law
  2. 2 Whether the defendants satisfied the requirements of reportage / Reynolds privilege
  3. 3 Whether a 'neutral forum' variant of Reynolds privilege is available

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted that the reportage defence as articulated in Roberts v Gable is available in Hong Kong but held the defendants did not establish it here because the Article was presented as the author's own piece (pseudonymous author), lacked the defining characteristic of reportage (neutral reporting of the fact allegations were made), failed adequate attribution and responsible journalism/verification, and therefore the 1st and 2nd Defendants were liable for defamation; compensatory damages of HKD 150,000 were awarded and aggravated damages were refused.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants; damages awarded; costs to defendants subject to order nisi

Orders

  • Award general compensatory damages to Plaintiff in the sum of HKD 150000
  • No award of aggravated damages