LOW CHUNG SONG AND OTHERS v. TARGET NEWSPAPERS LTD AND ANOTHER

LOW CHUNG SONG AND OTHERS v. TARGET NEWSPAPERS LTD AND ANOTHER

The appeal is allowed in part: rolled up pleas need not be struck out merely because they are rolled up (they may be reduced to a simple fair comment plea), pleading criminal intent is not improper even where the offence is of absolute liability, discovery will not generally precede particulars in libel cases but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LOW CHUNG SONG AND OTHERS v. TARGET NEWSPAPERS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Low Chung Song; 2nd Plaintiff: Low Chun Send; 3rd Plaintiff: Low Chang Hian; 1st Defendant: Target Newspapers Limited; 2nd Defendant: Raymonde M Sacklyn
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 July 1987
Case Number
HCA5581/1986
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Appeal/rehearing From Master's Striking Out Order on Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; Master's striking out order varied and defendants given leave to cure one insufficiency within 14 days
Legal Topics
Rolled Up Plea, Fair Comment, Particulars, Discovery and Interrogatories, Striking Out, Absolute Liability, Pleading Intent
Source Language
en
Defamation Civil Procedure Criminal Law (incidental) Rolled Up Plea Fair Comment Particulars Discovery and Interrogatories Striking Out +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Low Chung Song

1st Plaintiff

Low Chun Send

2nd Plaintiff

Low Chang Hian

3rd Plaintiff

Target Newspapers Limited

1st Defendant

Raymonde M Sacklyn

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Appeal/rehearing From Master's Striking Out Order on Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a rolled up plea should be struck out to reduce to a simple fair comment plea
  2. 2 Whether pleading criminal intent should be struck out where the alleged offence is one of absolute liability
  3. 3 Whether discovery and interrogatories should be allowed to precede particulars in libel proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed in part: rolled up pleas need not be struck out merely because they are rolled up (they may be reduced to a simple fair comment plea), pleading criminal intent is not improper even where the offence is of absolute liability, discovery will not generally precede particulars in libel cases but the court has discretion, the particulars served (including those in the draft amended defence) were in substance sufficient except for one deficient reply (Request 5(2)), and the proper remedy is to allow 14 days for defendants to serve that particular further and better particular or have that portion struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part; Master's striking out order varied and defendants given leave to cure one insufficiency within 14 days

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part; parts of Master's order striking out rolled up pleas were overturned and fair comment pleas to remain
  • Defendants granted leave to serve further and better particulars in reply to Request 5(2) within 14 days