ROBIN MILES BRIDGE v. WAI KIN-BONG AND ANOTHER

ROBIN MILES BRIDGE v. WAI KIN-BONG AND ANOTHER

Although the defendants were not guilty of gross negligence and published a full and timely apology, the statutory defence under Section 4 failed because the payment of $5,000 into court was not expressed to be by way of amends; consequently the defence was a nullity and judgment for the plaintiff for nominal damages of $1,000 with directions for payment out of the $5,000 in court.

Citation
ROBIN MILES BRIDGE v. WAI KIN-BONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Robin Miles Bridge; 1st Defendant: Wai Kin-Bong; 2nd Defendant: Tin Tin Yat Pao Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 February 1984
Case Number
HCA6588/1983
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Judgment After Trial Without Jury
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Section 4 Defamation Ordinance Defence, Apology and Amends, Payment Into Court, Gross Negligence Standard, Assessment of Damages, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Section 4 Defamation Ordinance Defence Apology and Amends Payment Into Court Gross Negligence Standard Assessment of 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Miles Bridge

Plaintiff

Wai Kin-Bong

1st Defendant

Tin Tin Yat Pao Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Judgment After Trial Without Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.4 defence available to newspaper proprietor/editor where payment into court was not expressed to be by way of amends
  2. 2 Whether publication was made without gross negligence
  3. 3 Whether published apology was full and timely

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendants were not guilty of gross negligence and published a full and timely apology, the statutory defence under Section 4 failed because the payment of $5,000 into court was not expressed to be by way of amends; consequently the defence was a nullity and judgment for the plaintiff for nominal damages of $1,000 with directions for payment out of the $5,000 in court.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1,000
  • Payment out of $5,000 in court: $1,000 to plaintiff's solicitors and $4,000 to defendants' solicitors