SHELDON GARY ADELSON v. KATE O\'KEEFFE

SHELDON GARY ADELSON v. KATE O\'KEEFFE

The court allowed the defendant leave to amend substantial parts of the defence because the proposed particulars were not so vague or embarrassing as to justify strike out and because the term "foul-mouthed", in context, was capable of being fair comment or justification; however pleaded allegations that amounted to general assertions of bad reputation or unspecified instances within the claimant's knowledge without particulars were disallowed. The court balanced pleading requirements against the interests of allowing relevant matters to be tested at trial and confined impermissible generalities.

Citation
SHELDON GARY ADELSON v. KATE O\'KEEFFE
Parties
Plaintiff: SHELDON GARY ADELSON; Defendant: KATE O’KEEFFE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 August 2014
Case Number
HCA342/2013
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory (applications to Strike Out and Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Applications partly allowed and partly dismissed: amendments to defence permitted in part; certain pleaded generalities and inadequate particulars disallowed.
Legal Topics
Justification, Fair Comment, Mitigation of Damages, Pleading Particulars, Strike Out and Amendment, Reputation Evidence
Source Language
EN
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Media Law Justification Fair Comment Mitigation of Damages Pleading Particulars +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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHELDON GARY ADELSON

Plaintiff

KATE O’KEEFFE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory (applications to Strike Out and Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether challenged paragraphs of the defence should be struck out
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be permitted to amend the defence to plead justification and fair comment with particulars
  3. 3 Whether the phrase "foul-mouthed" is capable of defamatory meaning or is fair comment/justification

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the defendant leave to amend substantial parts of the defence because the proposed particulars were not so vague or embarrassing as to justify strike out and because the term "foul-mouthed", in context, was capable of being fair comment or justification; however pleaded allegations that amounted to general assertions of bad reputation or unspecified instances within the claimant's knowledge without particulars were disallowed. The court balanced pleading requirements against the interests of allowing relevant matters to be tested at trial and confined impermissible generalities.

Court Disposition

Applications partly allowed and partly dismissed: amendments to defence permitted in part; certain pleaded generalities and inadequate particulars disallowed.

Orders

  • Amendments to Defence allowed as to §§13, 14, 16, 17.2 (save references to §17.1), 24.2 and 24.3 as per draft defence
  • No order in respect of §§1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the plaintiff's summons to strike out