TRINITY SUPPLIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. PETER J. MCGRATH AND ANOTHER

TRINITY SUPPLIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. PETER J. MCGRATH AND ANOTHER

The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's order because treating the defendants' correction and offer of amends as a conclusive answer to the pleaded intention to republish would pre-judge contested issues of intention and adequacy at the interlocutory stage; those matters require evidence at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
TRINITY SUPPLIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. PETER J. MCGRATH AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Trinity Supplies Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Fok Chun Wah; 1st Defendant: Peter J. McGrath; 2nd Defendant: Database Asia Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 April 1986
Case Number
HCA484/1986
Procedural Posture
Libel (defamation) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order (striking Out)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Order of the Master dated 11 March 1986 set aside; costs to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Offer of Amends, Injunction to Prevent Republication, Intention to Repeat Alleged Wrong, Summary Powers (order 18 R.19)
Source Language
en
Defamation Civil Procedure Injunctions Summary Disposal of Proceedings Striking Out Offer of Amends Injunction to Prevent Republication Intention to Repeat Alleged Wrong +1 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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trinity Supplies Limited

1st Plaintiff

Fok Chun Wah

2nd Plaintiff

Peter J. McGrath

1st Defendant

Database Asia Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel (defamation) / Interlocutory Appeal From Master's Order (striking Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 16 and prayer (2) alleging intention to republish are scandalous/frivolous or an abuse of process warranting striking out at interlocutory stage
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' correction and offer of amends operate as a complete answer extinguishing any apprehension of future publication
  3. 3 Whether determining adequacy of apology and defendants' intention to abandon the wrongful act can properly be done summarily on affidavit

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's order because treating the defendants' correction and offer of amends as a conclusive answer to the pleaded intention to republish would pre-judge contested issues of intention and adequacy at the interlocutory stage; those matters require evidence at trial and cannot be disposed of summarily on affidavit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Order of the Master dated 11 March 1986 set aside; costs to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Order of the Master dated 11th March 1986 set aside
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs in any event